Previous Post
Next Post

Albuquerque PD officers first use less lethal means to apprehend homeless illegal camper James Boyd. But the situation escalates and Boyd is shot and killed by the police officers, all of which is captured via helmet cam. Was this a good shoot?

Previous Post
Next Post


    • yep
      You have to wonder about the way the cops seem to feel it’s their duty to escalate a situation instead of de-escalate it. If you or I escalated things and then shot someone, what do you suppose our chances would be that it would be ruled a ‘good shoot’?

      • You would need the defense team Zimmerman had for that.

        However, in regard to this video, Rydak mentioned on another TTAG article that the police had verbally placed him under arrest and stated they could take him to a hospital (under their custody), is this true (source please)? However, at 16 sec in, it seems to be quite the contrary as he clearly states he’ll walk out with them, no need for an escalation, he’s not a murderer, and that the police will act in accordance with their agreement, to which the officer responds, “alright, alright”, clearly agreeing. So where was the part where they stated, “No, sir, you cannot leave, you are under arrest for vagrancy (or whatever) and need to come with us. We will take you to a hospital and your belongings will be processed and picked up afterwards. (or whatever LEO jargon would be used in this situation)”?

        According to the media, these two parties had been talking for 3 hours, so if he was such a threat, how is it that they were talking for so long? I understand that lethal force is to be taken if the opportunity arises, especially in a hostage situation, but this homeless guy didn’t present any clear threat to anyone at all. If you are going to make the laughable argument that he presented a threat to a fully geared up tactical hitman squad (seriously, that’s how to gear up for homeless encampments?), gimme a break!

        There is a famous vid of some guy held up, hands covered, police release a canine, as soon as the man responds, they gun him (and the canine) down in a volley of fire that would have sent the Brits running for the hills. In San Diego, famous video of a homeless man with a stick, PD release a dog on him, he raises his arm, they gun him down. It is an immediate reaction to defend one’s self, if not just to raise your arm for the dog to latch onto instead of your neck. So, what exactly is taught in the academies when a canine is deployed, that if the suspect does anything, any movement, they can then be deemed a threat and thus deadly force can be used (even if it means killing the PD canine)? Or has it become a tool to use “justifiable” deadly force? PD has no issue shooting animals on sight when answering to calls…. huh… lots of questions, I apologize for the train of thought.

    • i saw the comment above prior to it being censored.. err.. i mean moderated. it wasn’t vulgar or an ad hominem attack. it was just one individual’s opinion, which in this particular case, was critical of ttag. that seems to be why the powers that be chose to “amend” it.

      not cool mods. your staunch support of the 2nd amendment is admirable but this constant censorship of your readers really needs to stop. in case you’ve forgotten, there are other amendments to the constitution beside the 2nd – i.e. the one which precedes the second.

      i’ve recently discovered this blog and thanks to your efforts, i’ve learnt a lot. as a one-time anti-gunner, i sincerely commend you for your hard work. it’s one of the few websites i check a number of times throughout the day. however, the recent censorship is unethical, irritating, and i’d like to see it come to an end.

      • RF explained that comments regarding issues people have with the rules and policies of ttag be directed to the email rather than left in a comment. It’s boring reading comments that nitpick the blog rather than discuss the topic.

  1. Yeah, It was a good shoot /sarc. The guy is at least 15 feet away from the guns when he pulled his knives. Of course the chief is going to defend his thugs. It’s perfectly fine to kill a homeless man for camping. Rant off

        • Yea and I think that I look like Brad Pit every morning when I get up.

          Truth is he don’t got a single hole in his back and I don’t look anything like Brad. But hey,…whatever.

        • The helmet cam video makes it crystal clear that the guy was shot in the back, and multiple times. Oh, and then, after the guy is laid out full of bullets, the less lethal guy jumps in, shouts “bean bag, bean bag” and fires three bean bags at the dead or near dead perp. Truly remarkable. Yep, they deployed less lethal.

        • I would agree. The majority of the shots were made while he was turned away and almost all the shots made by the man with the camera were made into the guy’s back.

          Watching it frame by frame and the man with the camera hits him in the back.

          1:03 seconds into it:

          Definitely agree.

      • Rydak:

        Thank you for taking the time to debate with just about everyone else here. I was not there. From the video, it seems likely justifiable, but not what I would consider the “cleanest” shoot. As you mention, relying on video can be very tricky.

        I believe that we can draw lessons from these sometimes necessary tragedies.

        In the spirit of being constructive (difficult because any response to this will be used in the arguments against your points), what lessons can we learn from this situation?

        There is no question that the man had mental problems and was dangerous. He had attacked police before (broke one officers nose). It was reported that he had cut another man in the face with one of his knives (not an officer).

        The police are the “tip of the spear” and if we are going to act like a nation of laws, we cannot just allow a dangerous individual such as Mr. Boyd to defy the police with a stand-off and walk away.

        Sometimes, events conspire to create a tragedy that no one intended.

        Are there any suggestions that you might have on how to handle somewhat similar situations such as this in the future?

        I do not see any obvious improvements.

        Buck Rogers solutions like someone in a “bear suit” or using a lasso have their own limitations and difficulties.

        Maybe less reliance on procedure and more on improvisation? I have seen that end disastrously.

        The closest I can suggest is “Wait him out”. It usually works in less than 24 hours. People have to sleep.

        One of the things people miss in these events is how rare they actually are. Most police interventions of this sort end peacefully.

        We see them much more often because of the ubiquity of recorders and the internet. It colors our perception of reality.

      • totally different equation when guns are already drawn, flash bang thrown and dog sicced, not even comparable. Knife man has no advantage here.

        • Just like your concealed carry training. When deadly force is employed by your adversary…you shoot until the threat is DOWN.

          Violence doesn’t look pretty, it never is. But I get the idea that some on this thread would have preferred the closest officer to get sliced open first…and THEN….shootem up. Then, it would be “OK” to shoot him.

          Only problem is, I don; think the officers would have found a volunteer. Not from themselves or any other member of society. No, I don;t think there would be a person to say “Ok, well lets just get this over…Ill let him do what we all know he is going to do, what he has said he will do for hours. Get the ambulance ready….I;ll get cut first.”

        • Rydak, They wouldn’t need a volunteer. They could have tasered him, bean bagged him. Instead they sicced the dog on him and actually expected him to lay down on the ground and get chewed up by the dog. They were idiots. Their tactics were idiotic. They put themselves in a situation that required they use lethal force to protect their own when they needn’t have done so in the first place. Everyone seems to get this except for you.

        • Rydak,
          That’s quite an absurd false dilemma. The choice is not: “either someone is going to have to get sliced, or the man has to die”. They had less than lethal devices. The only one they deployed before killing him was the flash bang, which really only served to escalate the situation. In all likelihood, a beanbag would have persuaded him to drop the knives, and they still had the K9, if not.

    • I don’t agree; they were there for THREE hours, trying to talk down a man that had a record for violence against police. The K9 cop was approaching the man after he had said he would finally go with them; from the angle of the camera it’s hard to see but it’s there IF you look. The K9 cop was in danger from a man known to be violent and who was trying to hide knives in both hands.

      I’ve worked as private armed security for a military base; I can put my self in the cops shoes; If I was in that situation; I might have ended up doing the same thing.

      • You could be right. I’ve never worked in security (apart from a college job walking around the campus of a tech company at night with a flashlight), and never been a police officer.

        Of one thing I am reasonably certain, however: If the shooter were a regular citizen, he’d be looking at a murder rap.

        • Of one thing I am reasonably certain, however: If the shooter were a regular citizen, he’d be looking at a murder rap.

          Absolutely. Shooting a guy in the back – most certainly. I agree.

      • The K9 cop was in danger from a man known to be violent and who was trying to hide knives in both hands.

        Fair enough, however they could have just bean bagged him till he hit the ground. But instead they decided to flashbang him, sic the dog on him, and then riddle his back with bullet holes.

  2. Don’t think it was a good shoot but when your own department investigates itself you get what they want you to . Be prepared and ready . Keep your powder dry .

  3. They killed him for being homeless in Albuquerque.

    Yes, he did pull knives… after being harassed and attacked for 3 hours by a gang of cops wielding shotguns, assault rifles, pistols, and attack dogs. I am pretty sure most of us would have fought back after 3 hours of sleep deprivation as well.

    • “3 hours of Sleep deprivation” ….seriously? He could have surrendered to their lawful arrest at any time during that “deprivation”. He would be sitting in a nice clean courtroom right about now, talking to a man or a woman in a black robe.

        • Yes I do in fact believe this. ANYONE who “questions police” with two knives in his hands…..yes. Simply questioning with words. No.


        • The government employees were armed, so why shouldn’t the citizen be armed. He was dealing with armed thugs who have a long history of abusing citizens. They were even threatening him with an attack dog. The citizen would have needed body armor and a fully automatic weapon to defend himself from that gang of murderers.

        • I agree Chris. Also, he didn’t go to the police station to harrass cops with knives. The cops came to his camp site with an attack dog and gestapo gear. Did he have some knives? Yea. Was he willing to use knives agains’t an unleased ferocious dog? Looks like it. However if he was looking to attack cops with knives he probably wouldn’t have waited 3/4 hours when the attack dog arrived and the gestapo gear cops arrived with their militant tacticool outfits. If he was going to attack with knives why wait? It is obvious to me this is a LEO attempted arrest gone very wrong and instead of admitting that – we have the Chief and Rydak defending them all the way up until their paid vacation.

      • Had the officer not have thrown the flash bang Boyd would be in that courtroom. But hell will freeze over twice before a cop gets convicted of crime.

        • Absolutely agree. If two cops can shoot over 100 rounds into a mailmans car (thinking its dorner) and not actually know who is even in the vehicle and get nothing more than a paid vacation – no – no cop will ever be prosecuted. Certainly not a cop who shoots a homeless man in the back carrying pocketknives to defend himself against a vicious dog.

      • Rydak – if your a big proponent of relying on the courts to sort injustices out then why would you have any concern with these two officers having their day in court talking to a “man or women in a black robe”? If they are truly innocent as you contend then why the fuss?

        • “if your a big proponent of relying on the courts to sort injustices ” ANNND so is our constitution and the very premise of our society. Yea…like that.

          “why the fuss”? No fuss fro me at all. nobody, except the armchair commandos is suggesting that the officers be brought before a court on charges. But if they were I suspect they would do just fine…and without attempting to kill their arresting officers with two deadly weapons.

        • @Rydak

          But if they were I suspect they would do just fine…and without attempting to kill their arresting officers with two deadly weapons.

          So… I actually didn’t see this happen in the video. Maybe you were watching a different video. The homeless man packed up his crap and shouldered his backpack and certainly did not appear to be a threat until met with a threat (flash bang + aggressive dog). In fact, the knives were brought out when the dog got in close proximity. At no time did I see him attempt to … “Kill [his] arresting officers with two deadly weapons” What I did see was two arresting officers killing him with deadly weapons.

    • No, I don’t think most of us would draw or reach for a weapon at that point.

      The goal should have been to avoid escalating to this in the first place.

        • Looks like this to me: the flash-bang disorients an already disoriented man, possibly a combat vet. He’s hit with a taser, the dog charges him, and he pulls out the knives, holding them low to protect himself from the dog. And they shot him down, continuing the attack when he’s already down.

          All in a day’s work for the APD.

      • The goal should have been to avoid escalating to this in the first place.

        Absolutely. You nailed it right there. What is he to do with an aggressive dog attacking him? The dog is not a person who reasons. They should not have brought the dog there. If they hadn’t I doubt it would have escalated as it did. And what was that ridiculous flash bang for? To boost his adrenaline before they released the hounds??? Most ridiculous arrest attempt I’ve ever seen – unless they were looking for an excuse to shoot him?

    • Actually I would have just gone peacefully with them. If police come in force with guns drawn and start telling you to do things, it usually doesn’t end well if you don’t. Maybe the guy was in the right. Maybe the guy was offended guns were pointed at him when he didn’t do anything wrong. Maybe he was angry and confused. Maybe he should have just packed up and left with them 3 hours ago. I don’t know of anyone who’s won this kind of argument with the police. Agree with their tactics and policies or not, one thing you never want to do is arm yourself while in a standoff with police. The police weren’t going to allow him to run off into the hills knives drawn, thus the bullets in the back. This incident will never be an example of how best to respond to mentally ill homeless people with violent backgrounds. However, there’s nothing here I would fire, or press charges against police officers either.

      • Most people probably would have gone peacefully…gestapo though it is. I still cannot understand how anyone believes the police acted in a proper manner. Why Ar-15s/M4s? Why not mace first? Why not bean bags? They were looking for an excuse to shoot this man. He was turning away from them when they shot. Let him run off into the hills with knives? Please, these young stud cowards are in much better shape then the victim. The use of dogs even in these situations does confuse me. A person is supposed to submit to the animal that is chewing on their leg and make not aggressive moves. A person is supposed to drop the weapon which is now a weapon for defense against the animal. It is like asking someone not to blink as you are about to slap them, make no protective move. The dog handler was not unarmed, there was ZERO threat to the officers. He turned, they fired with frickin rifles!

  4. The state’s agents are scared of their own shadows in general, it’s what they’re taught. Assuming the state’s agents could see that his hands were full with the knives, it’s a bad shoot and the agents should be fired if not jailed. Assuming he had a knife in each hand, it’s also a very cowardly shoot, he didn’t charge them and he was greatly outnumbered.

    • It’s not even that. He was camping illegally, AKA being homeless. As far as I can tell, he is on public land up in the foothills in NE ABQ (I lived in ABQ for several years). The NE foothills is where all the old rich white people are, which is why the cops responded so violently in order to protect their financial backers. On top of that, if you watch the unedited video, Boyd AGREES to go with the cops peacefully, and as he starts to walk towards them to give up, they throw a flashbang at him. Camping illegally is a victimless, non violent crime, so why are they on him with rifles and attack dogs? Is that how they pull over speeders as well?

      • While killing him appears unnecessary, you would think the rational actor would drop knives or any other weapons when you have that much force from the police bearing down on you.

        The police will kill you if you stand in between them and going home safely. I don’t know that that’s right or wrong, it just is.

        • Its VERY right. We get paid to do a job. being dead or disfigured is not part of the job description.

        • Actually, it kinda is in the job description. Similarly to being in the military, the expectation is that when you put the uniform on you are willing to accept risk to yourself to prevent harm to the people you are sworn to protect. Death and serious injury are occupational hazards of the job, Deal with it.

        • The guy was yammering about being an agent for the Department of Defense and all kinds of other off-the-wall stuff. I think the cops had figured out long before this vid takes up that he wasn’t necessarily going to be a “rational actor”.

        • He’s homeless, very possibly a vet. I think “rational actor” was off the table before this got started… as escalated in every imaginable way by the cops. The only thing they could have done to disorient him more was to have a helicopter hovering 30 feet over his head.

          Where WAS the helicopter, anyway?

        • DJ…”hazards” of the job yes. Something we should be subjected to every time some nutjob has an issue with reality or the law or the price of tea in China…NO. There are not enough cops alive to soak up that much abuse. A risk…yes, a for-drawn conclusion no. We will do everything that any other person has a right to do to protect themselves from harm. And NO, it’s not “Kinda” in the description.

        • Rydak, I truly don’t understand how you can defend the actions of these cowardly officers. Yes, that’s right. They are cowards. They had him outnumbered, outgunned, outmaneuvered, and in an indefensible position, and then attacked him with a flashbang and an attack dog after telling him they wouldn’t if he complied AS HE WAS COMPLYING! This is no different than repeatedly poking the caged dog with a stick, sticking your hand in the cage, and then killing the dog because it “attacked” you. The homeless man would not have had two knives in his hands if not for a completely unjustified escalation by the officers. They brought this on themselves.

          But hey, as long as they go home safe at the end of their shifts, right?

          Get real.

        • Marcus : Honestly. I don;t defend them. I don;t even know them.

          The evidence so far as presented in the uncut full video defends them.

          When do they become brave in your eyes? When they put themselves at unnecessary risk to being cut to pieces or when they do as so many in this thread have suggested…let him go on his way. And the next morning this deranged man walks into someone’s house or a school. Then everyone is like….”what kinda lazy cops do we have the guy was deranged and breaking the law, why didnt you take him to jail or the physc ward? “…..there is no winning these incidents. Never is. I hope some day they come up with the laser thing in star trek that instantly stuns the suspect and he wakes up in jail. He would prob sue because when he was stunned he fell down a injured his head or leg…yea.

          Regardless of what you or I think, what walk of life we come from…etc. There is one simple truth. in America and I think its safe to say, in any country…if you resist a lawful police arrest with deadly force, you will be shot. The officers do not have to wait until he tries to stab one of them. Just pulling out the weapons is enough. They do not have to try and shoot the knife out of your hand or shoot you in the leg….etc.

          Again, the real tragedy here is that a human being with serious mental illness is dead, because our mental health system in this country sucks. Same thing that is said after ever mass shooting and ever incident with people like this.

        • Why should he drop his weapons when he is surrounded by a gang of murderers with a trained attack dog. He had every right to defend himself from that vicious animal. If the cops didn’t want the dog stabbed they should have kept it in the kennel.

        • @Rydak,

          The evidence so far as presented in the uncut full video defends them.

          Are we watching the same video? The camper agreed to come peacefully. He packed up his things and walked toward them. They threw a flash bang grenade and let the dog loose. I appeared to me he took out his knife because he was afraid of the dog. The guy with the camera then shot him in the side and back as he was falling over. Now… I really don’t see how that “uncut full video” defends them. It’s almost like they could have done anything else… anything… and everyone would still be alive today. Their actions were out of cowardice, stupidity, and ultimately negligence. The APD should have had some more professional characters running the show instead of Larry, Curly, and Moe.

      • Rydak:
        You are completely wrong on this issue. Even given the ability to cross a distance in a short period of time, with a K9, multiple weapons on him and the terrain there was no way the victim was a threat. Additionally, I find it curious that the beanbag was deployed after the bullets.
        You seem to be convinced that going home transcends anything else. What about the civilians or are you so arrogant that you maintain that we must bow down and genuflect whenever the state demands it? It is getting to the point, actually already there, where police are a bigger threat to us than we are to them.
        This shooting was nothing more than murder. IF the officers are not charged, convicted and serve time commesurate with what a civilian would receive for murder, the “system” is a joke. IN this case I would totally support the family exacting retribution on the officers, one by one. These guys are nothing more than thugs and like most thugs, only have group courage. One on one they would be easy.

        • “you maintain that we must bow down and genuflect whenever the state demands it?”

          No….just dont come at us with two deadly weapons then be all like “Oh WTF” when we shoot you. Cause thats what any other citizen has a god given, civil and constitutional right to do.

          “I find it curious that the beanbag was deployed after the bullets.”
          -Given your lack of factual knowledge about these types of incidents and a displayed willingness to see police state goons where they dont exists. I have a feeling that you find many things “Curious”

          Murder. Me thinks ABSOFRICKENLOOTY NO. Guy closest to suspect shooting suspect and causing him to lunge down and to the left and then a split second later the 2nd officer, with the helm cam, firing and looking like he was shooing a fleeing man. Easy to understand a person who is not familiar with these incidents getting confused about that dynamic. It also doesn’t help that the vast majority of america, myself included, was raised on watching TV shows where the bad guy always announces his intentions and always gets shot right dead center in the chest with amazing camera angles in a detailed and well written script. Or the police shoot the gun out of his hand or shoot him in the leg or somewhere else that it doesn’t hurt. Or even better, the delusion that the good guys always win.

          You are right about one thing…this country is in serious decline. Mostly from the moral decay of our society by liberal progressives and almost nonexistant mental health care for people like this guy. But not from incidents like this. This is what happens when you try to rationalize crazy.

        • @ Rydak,

          No….just dont come at us with two deadly weapons then be all like “Oh WTF” when we shoot you.

          Actually if you watched the video it appears to be the other way around. The camper was talking and walking towards the cops with a bag in hand and a hand on a shoulder of a backpack then suddenly the camper was like “OH WTF!”… Bang! a flash bang grenade goes off, He is getting instructions shouted at him from 5 different people, and an aggressive vicious dog is attacking him. Now the dog is not a person that you can reason with. He appears to me to take out his knife to protect himself from the dog – then he gets shot 7 times. Several probably in the back from the call of duty modern warfare cameraman.

          Cause thats what any other citizen has a god given, civil and constitutional right to do.

          If I were to shoot and kill a guy 15ft away with a pocket knife after releasing my dog on him I would most certainly go to prison. However police can do it. No problems there.

  5. So glad they have all that training as cops. Fuck I could have done that….throw a flash bang, scream orders at a guy who can no longer hear or see straight then shoot.

    New Mexico cops are creating quite a reputation for violence when not necessary:

    • Now now, Rydak and Paul McCain will be along any second to tell you that the guy deserved to be anally probed 8 times and that he shouldn’t have resisted because officer safety.

    • Exactly. Talk about the worst tactical performance ever orchestrated by police personnel. After watching it several times, It wouldn’t have surprised me if in an alternate universe one of the officers does a end-goal chicken dance.

  6. The guy did pull two knives and refuse to drop them…
    Im sorry I dont care if the police officers “harassed” him for 6 hours. In what world do we live in where pulling two knives on the cops who are pointing guns at you is an act of good faith?

    • From memory: About 20-25 years ago, there was a loon in Seattle with a samurai sword. They had a whole block in front of a major department store closed for something like 10-12 hours until he got tired, sat down and closed his eyes. Then the fire department zapped him with a fire hose. Everyone went home alive. I have no doubt that today, SPD would order him to drop the sword followed by a mag dump. It would be over in 30 seconds and the loon would be dead.

      A couple of years ago we had some poor soul commit suicide by cop in the City of Issaquah. The poor guy fired 11 times with a 30-30 in the direction of people. Witness said he did not appear to be shooting at them but near them. The King County SWAT team came by helicopter. 90 rounds later, the young man was dead. They later found his car out of gas nearby.

    • He pulled out the knives to protect himself from the dog. Watch it again. He pulls them out, and holds them low….

      He’s a homeless man camping in the hills above ritzy housing; I would think he’d had to use knives to protect himself from dogs before!

    • After watching it several times, it was evident to me that the knife was actually for defense against the dog. I guess his choices were at that point were to drop the knives and get on the ground and have the dog chew on his leg, break all the bones in his hand, etc, or get shot by police officers. Those LEO’s left him with some good solid choices. The only problem? He made a mistake thinking his life was worth more than that of a dog.

  7. I’m wary of judging these things on video, but this looks justified. The guy has three cops on the hilltop pointing guns at him, and kept them in a standoff long enough that the sun set and two shifts of officers had to respond (note the first team on scene had shotguns and pistols, instead of ARs as the second team used).

    The man wasn’t unaware that the cops wanted a chat. I’ve seen patrol cops handle homeless calls. They dont grab the 12 gauge unless said homeless guy does or says something about being armed.

    Next, once the officers tossed a flashbang and set a dog loose, the dude turns around as if he’s reaching for a weapon despite the guns drawn and pointed at him.That would have been a good time to keep his hands visible instead of turning away. What, did he think the cops were just gonna leave if he walked away? Make a move consistent with going for a weapon in front of a citizen who’s armed, and that’s what the person behind the drawn gun will suspect.

        • you’re obviously not capable of digesting the situation as it occurred, seemingly on the level of a gun grabber: KNIFE, KNIFE, KNIFE is all you see, yet you failed to see him begin to comply, get flash banged and then murdered. Pig lover.

        • TOM, suspects don’t always do what they say. Or what they look like they are doing through cameras. The officers shot because he pulled two knives. They saw it, the camera was not that high res to see it. He had HOURS to surrender civilly to a lawful arrest. And ultimately when the dust settled….there he was with two knives in his hands.

        • Like I said, I’m not judging based on the video and thus not judging at all. But, Rydak, how would a DA look at this if these weren’t cops, but 5 armed civilians attempting to remove someone from their land? What would that look like? They did not HAVE to shoot. It was at least 5 on 1, plus they had guns he did not.

          This may ultimately have resulted in the same outcome at some point, but it doesn’t SEEM to have needed to at this particular point (but again, I can’t say that based just on the video).

        • Tom,

          I think in that case a DA would clear the men,. Hard to tell though, so many DAs are just politicians.

          The idea of the number thing is fundamentally flawed. It could have been 100 cops against him. You work off the premise that if one of the cops got stabbed or otherwise taken out of the fight, the other four still out numbered him. The law and basic common logic goes that none of those officers wanted to be the one to be taken out. It would be the same response if there was one officer or 100. The numbers game is a facade. No officer, regardless of our many friends he has with him, should be threatened with deadly weapons. Sooner or later some poor sole would have t go up and try to put handcuffs on the crazy man with twins blades and no conception of reality.

      • What person surrendering to the police says “wait, let me get my stuff before being put into custody?”

        He either was walking away (not smart) or reaching for some kind of weapon.I wonder if you’d have stayed your hand – had the homeless guy done that on your property after being told at gunpoint to stand down.

        • If he were on private property, or for that matter anywhere near private property, I would think slightly differently on the matter. That is not, however, the case.

        • Vhyrus: So the officer’s skin would somehow slice open in a different way if it were on a different kind of property?

        • That stuff was probably that guys whole world. I know if I could pack all of my possessions in to a backpack, I would be pretty hard-pressed to separate from it. I would probably not be in the best state of mind either.

        • You are failing to take into account just how important a homeless person’s few possessions are to him/her. It’s a natural reaction to try and protect what little he owns in the world.

          He doesn’t have an attic or a basement to store his stuff safely in. That’s why he was camping off by himself in the first place – to keep his stuff from being stolen!

          Unlike you, he can’t go and swipe some plastic to replace his stuff.

    • From all I’ve seen and read so far, that appears to me to be the only way to justify the shooting–that when he turned away he looked like he might be going for an unknown weapon (which could include a firearm). But that’s not apparently what the cops are saying, they are mostly talking about the knives and the K-9 officer. But that only came into play after he was already shot and down.

  8. I’ve said this a number of times before; sadly there’s no end in sight. My old man once said that you either whip ’em, outsmart ’em, or get whipped. He was talking about school bullies, a different subject entirely to be sure, but the basic premise still applies. Police these days simply do not think things through anymore. In this particular case, we have a single victim (and yes, he was a victim) and a number of police officers. When the police have time, numbers, space, indeed everything, in their favor, does it not seem reasonable to make more effort to bring a crisis to an end without bloodshed? And that really, the only way to make that happen is to THINK once in a while?

    I honestly don’t know what the solution is, only that ‘copthink’ is killing people.


    • The correct solution in this case would have been to submit to what was a lawful arrest. Then he would be sitting in a nice clean courtroom about now. You and Obama can dream up tails from your father all day long, the truth is, if he didn’t pull, two knives on those officers, and submitted to the arrest, he would be alive today, talking with a public defender.

      • Hey now, you leave my old man and Obama out of this…oh wait, my dad. I meant my grandfather. Never mind, feel free to carry on.

        Anyways….yes, you are entirely correct. He should have taken his lumps and submitted. But I can’t speak to his mental state, either. Maybe he felt (and actually was) harassed. Or maybe he was just mental. Damned if I know. But what I do know is that when a human being is killed, somebody fucked up big-time. Usually several somebodies. As I said, the police had EVERYTHING in their favor, yet they still killed him. Yes, I’m aware of the 21′ rule, Tueller drill, knives and all that. So, make the space! Hell, the guy couldn’t have stayed awake forever.

        It’s just as Tom in Oregon said – way too many options available. No one thought to think outside the box, only the corner everyone got painted into. And sometimes that happens no matter what. But I stand by my observation that APD dropped the ball just as badly as he did for not surrendering.


        • There can be no “Street (or in this case wilderness) courtrooms”. A police officers says ‘I’m accusing you of a crime, your under arrest, you need to see the judge’. Thats it folks. Submit to the lawful arrest and go see the judge or that officer is justified in using whatever force is necessary to bring you before the court. The officer doesn’t just decide what force to use, your actions do (No homicidal cops allowed)…and this suspect’s actions decided his ending for him…not the officers. Pull one or even two knives on a cop or anyone for that matter..and you get shot. Don;t like that rule? Then don’t pull two knives on people. Its pretty straight forward really.

          Would it have been nice if they didn’t shoot him, of course it would. A human life has been lost, that’s horrible. But they did spend several hours trying to talk to him and get him to comply with a lawful arrest.

        • I take it Rydak is not in favor of Indiana’s lethal force against a public servant law…

        • Its the law of all states. You fight your battles in court, not with the enforcers of the law.

      • The proper course of action is to disarm government employees, giving them whistles and radios. Cops should be “outgunned” even by someone with a knife.

      • The correct solution in this case would have been to submit to what was a lawful arrest. Then he would be sitting in a nice clean courtroom about now. You and Obama can dream up tails from your father all day long, the truth is, if he didn’t pull, two knives on those officers, and submitted to the arrest, he would be alive today, talking with a public defender.

        And here it is. Rydak’s solution. Comply or die. His response would no doubt emphasize the presence of these two amazingly dangerous weapons called “pocketknives.” vs… yes, two police officers with M4 or comparable firearms + two police officers with 12GA pump action shotguns + one police officer with pistol sidearm + attack dog.

        Lets not think of an alternative solution that does not result in loss of life… no instead… comply or die. It would have been so easy for those cops to not take his life. All they had to do was make a hole and direct him to the patrol car since he was already walking in that direction. Have him assume the position and perform your pat down. Handcuff him, remove the “pocket-knives” and leave his bags outside the patrol car as they drove off. No – instead they put on the most ridiculous performance imaginable. Let’s throw a flash bang grenade not even close to him into the rocks nearby to immediately pump adrenaline through the suspects body – followed by releasing the hounds while we all shout different commands at him. When he “resists” being marred and injured by the dog – we follow up with live ammunition… great. Epic fail on the moronic cowardice police’s part.

  9. The sad truth of the matter is it seems these days the only way an officer actually loses his job over a bad shoot is one of three ways.

    1. Victim is a kid or a woman
    2. Its a blatant execution(only maybe them)
    3. The officer is White and the Victim is a minority.

    If one or more of those 3 do not apply; hand slapping takes place, time off (usually paid) then “back to normal”.

    The Media just doesn’t care who gets shot by police unless it falls into one of those 3 convenient narratives.

    This guy was killed, unlawfully plain and simple. This is not Brazil where they can shoot you in the back while you run away from the cops.

    • If the 2 women shot in the Dorner manhunt don’t get officers removed, then I’m not sure how much worse the offenses have to be.

      Eating people seems to be one of the few sure ways.

    • Oh yummy !! You just stated the basic rules for social lynch mob justice. Or Media justice. Basically the same thing. Good Show Man!

      • John S is right. If a cop wants a paid vacation he need only shoot a random individual nearby and claim they were REACHING FOR SOMETHING

  10. That was plain and simple a murder. And for all the people out there that say less lethal shotguns and pepper spray don’t work, I’ll say they are part of the crowd that sanctions ‘shoot to kill’ on homeless bums at a distance. Who on earth would call that less than a lynching of a bum?

      • knives deployed after he was flashbanged while attempting to comply and then had dogs sicced on him. Where was the command to ‘drop the weapon’? he they had him at gun point, the 21ft rule applies for situation in which you have to “draw, aim, fire” not for when the knife wielder is under the gun already.

        • I agree completely. Who authorized or commanded an unarmed dog handler to move ahead of the officer with the less lethal shotgun? One minute people on this board are screaming “but he had knives!” The next minute they think sending an unarmed officer to within five meters of the guy is fine? That makes no sense at all.

          The six, count ’em, six officers on the scene could have worked the guy down with less lethal. If that somehow failed (it shouldn’t) then #3 birdshot or buckshot to the lower calf/foot isn’t a difficult feat at 15 or 20 yards. If I can do it, they should be able to. But no. Send an unarmed guy in close. Freak out the dogs with the flashbang. Then claim you have to shoot with “assault weapons” because, well, the guy you sent to within five yards unarmed is being threaten by knives that they knew for threeeee hours were in the guys possession: Those knives came out at the beginning of the three hours, else he’d have been batoned and cuffed. Obviously.

          Avoidable Homicide. Easily avoidable. Why not call it murder? They killed a guy, with the absolutely self-generated excuse…. that an unarmed guy sent forward to within spitting distance of a knife-wielding perp had to be protected. By killing the guy.

        • Rydak, you are simply wrong. The 21 foot rule isn’t even a rule. It is a small-sample result of a training drill. But that drill definitely began with firearm holstered. Even Wikipedia covers it, but better sources are available. You’re welcome to try charging me with a knife from fifteen feet if you want, so long as I can have my shotgun up. Not a problem.

          I’ve come to realize I live in a township with an astoundingly professional PD, if the stuff I read on this board, and the comments approving needless shootings, are a guide to what the rest of the US is like. It isn’t by luck but by constructive community involvement that we have a good PD.

          There seems to be a consensus that sending an unarmed guy to within 5 yards of the guy with two knives made any sense….but then 21 foot rule…got to shoot the guy because he might knife the unarmed guy that shouldn’t be anywhere near the perp. Are people really thinking?

        • You are not going to get through Rydak. Based off his ignorant post and his severe lack of intelligence he must be a pig here in Albuquerque. I have yet to meet one with an IQ in the triple digits. Hey, that’s why they join APD after all right? Sure beats working at circle K. Hopefully there is a Michael Astorga out there waiting for him on an upcoming traffic stop.

        • ropingdown: Your theory of what the 21 ft rule is misguided, there are many many officers and fellow citizens who have been sliced to pieces by trying to play distance games.

          Your proud of your local PD? Good for you, I am happy that you see their commitment and respect them. I am certain the feeling is mutual. Its why they became cops. To look after and protect their fellow citizens so they can enjoy their lives in peace. With that said….pull two knives on one of these professional officers and lets see how long it takes before he “professionally” empties his magazine into your torso. Yes?/No? Nobody deserves to be put at risk of being filleted alive, especially after sending hours trying to end it peacefully.

        • Rydak, I enjoy this site because people do discuss fairly civilly. Good. So I won’t argue the point about the 21-foot “rule.” Save that for another day. But I would ask you to watch the live-leak helmet cam video C posted below. Or to explain why an unarmed dog handler was sent in close to a homeless man known by the LEOs on the scene to have two knives.

          For all of us who pay RE and other local taxes a well-educated and well-trained police force is a plus. That’s why we have them. But clearly very many jurisdictions have failed to hire and train carefully. I’m starting to think the move from shotguns to carbines has been a huge mistake. Irony of ironies, I just had a local LEO at my door at 12:50 a.m. I burned some pasta while reading this stuff, and the alarm system called the FD, but the PD got here first, very politely got a description of the smoke’s source, called off the FD, shook hands, and went on his way. God I love this township,.

        • “I enjoy this site because people do discuss fairly civilly”
          – Sweet Mother of god…..did you not see the 427 calls for these officers to be put to death? Convicted of murder?

          “Or to explain why an unarmed dog handler was sent in close to a homeless man known by the LEOs on the scene to have two knives.”
          – Contrary to popular belief on this board. I was not there. Nothing goes as planned or perfectly. Many on this board have said over and over….why didnt they send the bog in? Well it looks like they did and the officer pulled the K-9 back. I can not explain that. Not in a position to do so.

          “For all of us who pay RE and other local taxes a well-educated and well-trained police force is a plus.”
          – Agreed completely. We can never be “Good enough” its always a struggle to make the correct call, to improve and serve society better and when you do make a decision….you can bet the there will be tons of people damning your family name and saying that you made the wrong call. They of course will be doing this from the comfort of their home or office, mostly in front of the computer. People spend decades screwing their lives up with all forms of depravity and then call the police to fix the mater, in less then 10 mins and in a way that doesnt hurt and doesnt cost to many tax dollars and doesn’t “look bad”, assuming of course the problem can even be “fixed” , which in most cases it can not. PS: Cops pay taxes too 🙂 (Just saying)

          “I burned some pasta while reading this stuff”
          – Ahhh thats what I had for dinner as well !!!

  11. Shooting as he’s turning away, after the flash bangs, after the dogs, Etc, al.

    Sure he ran his mouth at you, defied your orders, and pretty much was not going to comply with the higher terrain on open ground. So, instead of cooler heads prevailing, cops that would want to de-escalate things,….. F-em….light his ass up.
    We’ve seen no weapons, no imminent threat, so cap his ass while he turns his back to you. The lawyer reviewing the case is quoted as stating he never has seen a “murder”. Links on the blaze, and bearing arms, my comp. link is acting screwy, probably an nsa or Eric Holder thingy, but that would never happen.

    • He didnt have a single hole in his back, he reached for his second knife, got it and turned back..thats when lethal force was used. He took those rounds in the chest. FYI…shooting an armed adversary is not murder.

      • Honest question–how/where did you get the info he took all shots in the chest? The reason I ask is, seeing the vid it looks like he’s turning his back on the cops about the time the shots ring out. I just kind of assumed he was shot in the back. Just googled and read a follow-up report, no mention of where or how many bullets actually hit him, no official cause of death yet. Watched the tape of the TV news report, they froze the frame when the guy was in mid-turn, just before the shots, because they didn’t want to show the guy being shot on their broadcast I expect. At that point, no one was even confirming the cause of death. Do you have access to an update? One thing that the news report pointed out, the APD has a reason to be a bit defensive about one of the shooters. He was hired after being fired by the State Police for working a second, private security job while he was on state time. The APD said when they hired him that he wouldn’t have a badge and he wouldn’t tote a gun. Obviously, that didn’t quite turn out.

        • Yeah? Well where’s your proof he took those rounds to the chest? Come on, spit it out.

        • Yes, the difference being that I admitted it, and asked for someone with superior factual knowledge to correct me. Which you didn’t. If I put “he was shot in the back” in all caps, would that make it true?

        • @Rydak,

          I agree with the others. Your unsubstantiated assertion that he was never shot in the back has no merit. In the link to the video here:

          at exactly 1:04 into the video the call of duty modern warfare tacticool cameraman shoots nothing but the back of his body. Other shots are heard before his – however when he starts shooting -> nothing but backside of his body.

          Also, it was evident to me the knives were deployed to defend against the dogs. He did not approach the officer or the dog – only stood still.

      • If a man has a knife sixty feet, twenty yards, from me, and I have a rifle, it is nearly certain I would be charged with murder if I put three rounds in his chest. If I told an accomplice “run up on the guy. The second he makes a move I’ll put three rounds in his chest” it will still be murder.

        What we mean when we say it is murder is that six (at least) armed cops shot a guy dead when they could have apprehended him, perhaps after wounding him with less lethal, perhaps buckshot to the calf. We see this again and again, long standoffs in which the LEOs profess to be working to bring someone in safely, then BAM they shoot the guy dead without a clear need. Springfield, VA. Cali. Ariz. It really makes no sense.

        • When you say that it makes no sense. I believe you. It makes no sense to YOU.

          Would you have been the officer to volunteer to get close to the guy with serious mental issues and past violence with knives….while he was holding two knives and “apprehend” him?

          Buckshot to the calf? Um…ever heard of arterial bleeding? Might as well have saved him some pain and just shot him in the head if you were going to buckshot him in the calf. End result would have been the same. Shooting in legs and arms and stuff like that is for TV.

        • Rydak: No, I would not have volunteered to get close until the accused discarded the two known knives. I would have told the canine officer to go away. I would not have allowed a flash-bang, which freaked the dogs and the perp. I would have put the less lethal officer on point. I would have put a shotgunner on the less lethal guy’s 9.

          Yes, if less lethal fails, shotgun pellets may have cause bleeding in the lower calf and foot. A tourniquet can quickly be applied once the man is subdued with batons (if required). He’ll live. In the spirit of Joe Biden I can only say “go to the skeet range, go to the skeet range.”

          I’ve watched, as a legal counselor to some, the steady march of arguments against less lethal and shotguns. I’ve concluded the march has been a mistake. Too often I see the reluctance to (let’s be honest) wound a perp with less lethal….leading to the death of the perp by carbine. I can’t tell you what to do, but I can ask you to reflect on that problem.

        • I completely agree with ropingdown. The officers orchestrated his death with the K9 and the flashbang grenade. It was a stupid play – the dumbest play ever but also the perfect play if you are looking for the suspect to pull something out to defend himself against an aggressive dog.

          He was already walking in their direction. Why not make a hole, keep your distance, and have him walk in front to the patrol car and assume the position and then take him down. They killed him and needlessly at that.

  12. To shoot a man armed with a knife who is more than 15 feet from the nearest friendly and is turning away at the time he is shot is murder, plain and simple. This victim posed little in the way of credible threat considering the dog and all the armed officers, imminence wasn’t imminent and it appears that he was actually attempting to retreat when he was killed.

    One is forced to wonder how long before the police are known as the new ‘murder incorporated’.

      • Tueller Drill: Something I shoot most weekends for the last 20 years. It doesn’t apply when yout compadres already have rifles drawn on the subject. The Tueller drill is about drawing from concealment and getting enough hits on target before the knife wielder can contact you. It has absolutely no bearing on a situation in which the target is turning away rather than advancing and no bearing on a situation in which multiple men already have rifles sighted on the target.

        I’ll tell you what, I’ll let you off the hook. You look it up and if you still think it in any way applies to this apparent homicide, let me know and we’ll debate it then.

        • You forgot: how likely is this man to charge (armed) police – about a half-dozen of ’em – with a POLICE DOG in between him and the cops?

        • Absolutely agree. Furthermore… flashbang and release of the K9??? What did they expect? Him to jump down on the ground and get his face chewed off?

      • OK, I just looked it up. Tueller drill involves a man sprinting toward an officer who only has a holstered handgun. Starting from 21 feet away. Officer has to draw and shoot before attacker reaches him. That really doesn’t seem to apply here, with officers already aiming long guns at him and the attacker turning away. K-9 officer, tho, is kind of the wild card.

        • You didn’t read very far did you.

          Even once the shots occur, assuming they hit, this is no guarantee that he will fall down with his eyes closed and go to sleep like they do in the movies. With adrenaline and such, a man can continue the assault long after receiving fatal wounds. This has been documented time and again throughout history. Please….read more.

          But if that takes to much time, heck just fry the cops and be done with it, screw their silly notion of wanting to live to see tomorrow and retire without being wheelchair bound.

        • What part of “already aimed long guns” –like, what, 3 or 4 of them, at that, versus “holstered handgun” are you not understanding? All I said was that the Tueller drill had no application to this scenario. You have a serious case of tunnel vision going there.

  13. Man, the most dangerous game, coming to pay per view. A chase through brush, with dogs, cornering the prey, and an explosive finish. And look at what big teeth he had, the hunters were in mortal danger. Just another taxpayer funded safari that will make a great story at the bar later. ‘amarite

  14. Appears to have had blades in his hands once they turn him over.

    That notwithstanding, at marker 1:02 there appears to be someone saying “booyah”…

  15. Reinforces what I’ve said a number of times. Doesn’t matter if you’re right or wrong. When the police arrive, comply. Otherwise the AI gets to argue and call each other names over whether or not your killing was justified.

    The police read the internet meme about gunfights. They bring a gun and all their friends that have guns. When you show up with a shithouse lawyer attitude and a knife, you get shot.

    Whether it’s right or wrong means squat, you get shot.

    • Well…submitting to lawful arrest is what the law calls for is it not? You address the criminal charges in court, like civilized people do, not in the street like an animal. If we dont like that law…maybe we can write a law that says otherwise. You may get it passed, particularity in this administration…lol.

      Still dont think you will get a law passed that says a cop or anyone for that matter has to keep using non-lethal force when a guy pulls two knives on him. I think that one is way in the future. Not going to pass anytime soon.

      • You address the criminal charges in court, like civilized people do, not in the street like an animal.

        I agree. The cops probably shouldn’t have acted like animals and addressed the criminals charges right then and there with 5.56 ammo and attack dogs but rather in the court like civilized people.

        Oh I’m sorry… who is the victim again? Oh the police that got scared… got it.

    • Have you ever tried the 21 foot drill? Here’s another one… with a knife, see how fast you can spin around.

      • The “crime” was illegal camping. He was on very rough ground, he wasn’t running at anyone with a knife in that place.

        The police spent three hours. They could have spent six. Or twenty-four. Instead they chose to close in and kill a man who wasn’t right in the head. They could have just waited for him to fall asleep, but then they wouldn’t get the chance to use those tacticool rifles.

      • I shoot the tueller drill at least once almost every weekend for the last 20 years or so. In no version of it does the knife wielder have any sort of chance against a drawn gun (the drill is for a holstered pistol), let alone multiple rifles already aimed. The tueller drill has no bearing on this murder at all and is at best a distraction. The obvious reality is that the only person in imminent danger was the victim and that the decision to shoot was a bad one. A man with a knife /= 5 men with guns.

        • Were you ever under the supervision of a trained expert? I’m thinking no. You trained poorly for a long time. Such a horrific waste.

          Even if the shots got off, with reaction time and such, the adrenaline of the subject and the time it takes for the bullets to shut down the central nervous system…a man can rage on slashing away for a long time after receiving fatal wounds. This has been documented over and over thru history. Seriously. READ MORE. And BEGIN your training. Whatever you were doing…..only training to be bad.

          I surely hope you didnt pay someone for that “training”.

        • Rydak,

          You are missing an ginormously important fact:

          Your assertion is true that raging attackers amped up on drugs and/or adrenalin are physiologically capable of functioning for at least 10 seconds after taking a handgun round in the chest. Thus, defenders armed only with handguns are in grave danger when facing a person with a knife on flat terrain with no way to back up.

          However, that was NOT the situation here. The defenders had rifles. Attackers amped up on drugs and/or adrenalin are NOT physiologically capable of functioning after taking a hollowpoint rifle round to the chest at 20 feet. Furthermore, the homeless man was on uneven terrain which would seriously impair his ability to rush anyone. Third, the police had all the room in the world to back up and maintain a safe distance.

          Even more importantly, you have ignored the overall context of the situation: this is about a man who was squatting. Had the man been in the process of raping or assaulting someone or holding someone hostage, I would view the actions of the responding police officers in a totally different light. But that is not the case. The man was squatting — illegally camping as they said. Illegally camping is not a serious enough crime to justify the way the police escalated the event.

          In the end the police didn’t kill the man because of illegal camping, they killed the man because he was defiant to police which is now a capital offense apparently.

        • uncommon_sense

          “Flat Terrain”. He was up hill, he held the high ground, he could run down forward faster then they could run away backwards. high ground is always the advantage.

          There is no basis for the rifles vrs pistols argument.

          “the police had all the room in the world to back up and maintain a safe distance.”
          — They did that….for hours., It was time to end this, after he had pulled the knives and been threatening the officers with death for hours.

          “they killed the man because he was defiant to police which is now a capital offense apparently”
          — Amazing how your analysis ignores several hours of death threats to the police and the two deadly weapons in his hands. Well…I guess that can somewhat be described as “Defiant” …although I dont think thats why they killed him. Shame that you do.

        • Rydak,

          First of all, I see no compelling reason why it was “time to end the standoff”. Why was it time?

          But even if it was time to end the standoff, one of the officers on scene had a shotgun with beanbag rounds. Why not light up the guy with bean bag rounds and turn the dog loose? There was absolutely no danger to the officers with that course of action. If the man goes down, great then the officers can pounce on him and restrain him. If the man somehow shrugged off the beanbags and the dog and still had his knives in hand and suddenly rushed the officers, they still had rifles pointed at him and could still defend themselves effectively.

          Please tell me why the officers were not obligated to try the beanbags and dog before shooting the man. And stop with the “he had a knife in his hand” mantra. The officers were a safe distance away from the man and they had rifles already aimed at the man. No man in this world is going to close that distance and harm any of the officers in that scenario.

        • Uncommon Sense

          “he had a knife in his hand” mantra…..because thats all the law requires

          “The officers were a safe distance away from the man”…No they were not. As indicated by both the video and the police chief’s statements.

          “and they had rifles already aimed at the man”….Which the lawfully used.

          “No man in this world is going to close that distance and harm any of the officers in that scenario”….not the way this one played out.

        • @uncommon_sense
          Rydak doesn’t see the camper as a compliant individual (even though he agreed to go with the cops and walked toward them while carrying his crap). He sees him as a renegade homeless insurgent with… POCKET KNIVES! Deadly pocket knives capable of killing 5 armed police officers and a K9. There you go.

      • He was shot turning away, not turning toward, or any other such manner. Watch the original footage, not the “chopped up due to graphic content” one posted here. Not to mention the ridiculous initial overreaction of excessive responding officers.


        911: “Help! Someone is trying to kill me!” Dispatch: “Hold tight, we got 2 officers on their way.”

        311: “Hi, I would like to report a mentally unstable man camping in the park. I believe he may be homeless.” Dispatch: “Does he have any weapons on him; Is he making any threats?” 311: “Not that I am aware of. He is talking to himself though. I’ve had visitors submit complaints. He is disturbing the serene experience.” Dispatch: “Alright, I’ve got 10 officers responding. He will be taken care of.”

    • Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this terrible matter. And…Your Welcome…just doing my job sir. Have a nice day.

      • I can’t be sure if you’re trolling or really that ignorant. Did you watch the same video I did? That was murder plain and simple. If someone without a badge had done this they’d be charged and likely convicted, they would most certainly be jailed tonight. Watch again with your badge off and then tell us who was in imminent danger of harm when the shooting started. Where I’m from one actually has to be headed toward the shooter with a knife to be called a threat.

        • They would in fact be convicted of murder. Not because they used the force, but because they attempted to make an illegal arrest. ie: without authority. And as such that man would have been within his right to resist it with force.

          As to this attempted arrest by police. If he had complied, he would be sitting in a court room about now. With all of his legal rights jealously guarded by the court and a public defender.

      • Step out of line and you’re free to join Boyd in a dirt nap. I have no respect for officers who thin they are better than anyone else. In another time our forefather would tarred and feathered every one of those cops.

        • I think our forefathers would have shot him if he pulled two knives on them, and I honestly dont think they would have waited hours to do it.

        • Dude, you’re REALLY fixated on the possible knives that he never got a chance to use because the shot down and then repeatedly shot again, just to make sure he couldn’t use the knives after he was dead. Then all the officers congratulated themselves on what a fine job they did and went back to write up their reports together, so everything would agree. But they didn’t think the video would be released because it was an “ongoing investigation.” And now they will be safe at home on full pay while the new Chief tries desperately to put a positive spin on the whole mess and save HIS job.

          And I suppose you have never heard of “using excessive force.”

          Did I get that right?

        • Jus

          “Dude, you’re REALLY fixated on the possible knives that he never got a chance to use because the shot”

          –Yes,,,because they or anyone should not be required to wait until he uses them to harm him. His verbal and physical actions led to his death.

        • @ Rydak,

          –Yes,,,because they or anyone should not be required to wait until he uses [knives] to harm him. His verbal and physical actions led to his death.

          This is very much a carefree “liability” free statement. All responsibility lies the perp… comply or die.

          To be quite honest… in the right hands, for someone who knows where to place it, a sharp No 2 pencil is equally deadly as the suspects “pocket knives.” In fact, in some instances they could be more effective as they are longer. And if pocket knives are dangerous, pencils are dangerous, ink pens, crescent wrenches, screw drivers, spoons, forks, and key chains are all dangerous and can kill, then because cops should not be required to wait until people use these instruments to harm – their verbal and physical actions lead to their deaths?

          Cops should provide the benefit of the doubt to the people for which they serve. Otherwise we get grandpa getting shot and killed on his porch in the middle of night responding to a noise in his backyard only to be killed by police officers who spot him with the family rifle (A TTAG story). Or we get cops shooting 100+ rounds into mailmen vehicles mistakenly thinking they are cop killers (dorner – a TTAG story). Or we get a guy running around NYC getting shot at by NYPD thinking he has a gun when he actually does not and then the NYPD arrest him and charge him for the deaths the NYPD inflicted on pediatricians standing behind the suspect (a TTAG story). Or we get cops that break into homes and shoot a guy in his bed in the middle of the night (a TTAG story). The list goes on and on.

          To be honest, if you can’t provide people with the benefit of the doubt without opening fire and killing them… I would prefer you not serve as a police officer.

  16. Clean shoot to be sure. Its a shame it ended that way, They say the man had mental issues. Again..a failed mental health issue in this country. Prob gonna ban pulling more than one knife on a cop now….pft.

    All this hubbub reminds me of the case a decade or so back where a guy was killed for “illegal parking”…forgot to mention that he threw the ticket at the officer and then charged at him screaming “die mofo!!” while reaching for a gun in his waistband. (which was found with the # scratched off…but still in his waistband)

    The low information viewer is exactly why these things become so big on the interwebs and why we have Obama winning two presidential elections. No difference really.

    • When pigs escape the confines of domestication they become feral, its legal to shoot feral hogs in all 50 states, no bag limit, not tags needed. Watch out though, they’ve got pretty thick, resistant skin, you might want to use something with a little extra penetration.

      • Wow…so I should die for my stance that these officers defended themselves from a deranged akimbo knife wielding man?

        When you can rest easy friend, I wish no ill will towards you for wanting the officers to be punished for having the audacity to want to live without being sliced open based on a video which you clearly did not watch very closely.

        “Have a nice day, and as always thanks for your cooperation” “Would you like an Officer Baseball Card? I still have some left?” “They didn’t screw up the photo this year”

        • But your stance is explicitly NOT that officers had a right to defend themselves. Just a little up thread, you admitted a civilian would be convicted of murder for the same thing, because they would be attempting an illegal arrest.

          So this is not about police defending themselves like civilians can. It’s about police enforcing their authority. With lethal force. Against an illegal camper.

        • “So this is not about police defending themselves like civilians can. It’s about police enforcing their authority. With lethal force. Against an illegal camper.”

          That is NOT what I Said. What I said was the homeless man would have had a legal right to defend himself with deadly force against an unlawful arrest…same if police attempted an unlawful arrest. Thats why the civilian would have been convicted of murder. Because they had no authority to do what they were doing, they were practicing vigilantly justice attempting to enforce laws that they had no statutory right to enforce…and using force to do so to boot.

          I like how this keeps coming back to the illegal camper thing. Why do you not mention the “person who pulled two knifes on police after several hour stand off”? Doesnt fit the agenda as well as “illegal camper?” I see..

        • But if it’s a matter of whether he has a right to defend himself against an unlawful arrest, then it’s not a matter of the police defending themselves. They are the aggressors, you’re just claiming they’re within their lawful powers in so doing.

          I disagree. The video shows that he was picking up his stuff to comply when the police suddenly and needlessly escalated their use of force with the flashbang and the dog. At that point they were no longer using “reasonably necessary” force to effect the arrest. As such their conduct became unlawful at that point. Therefore beyond that point they were not conducting a lawful arrest.

        • You’re Is what you meant.

          Apparently my suspicions are correct. You are severely lacking in the intelligence department (just like the rest of APD), which has left you with very limited career choices. I have to wonder though, was being a pig your first choice?

          Also, I stand by my Astorga comment direct towards you but not for the reasons you suspect. I would like to explain my reasoning to you in a way you can understand, but that is practically impossible without the use of crayons and pictures. Hmm, maybe I can send you some .gifs created in MS Paint….

      • @SysEng

        from Rydak:

        When you can rest easy friend, I wish no ill will towards you….

        Until Rydak spots you with a screwdriver in your shirt pocket and screams at you to drop the weapon… when you turn around to look behind you at the suspect you realize that the suspect is actually you and now you are “reaching for something” You feel all of Rydak’s 15 rounds from his service pistol pierce center of mass and your organs. As you gurgle for your last breath you remember … Rydak feels no ill will towards you… but Rydak should not have to be required to wait until a perpetrator uses weapons to harm him. Your verbal and physical actions led to your death. In your last exhale you remember his words:

        “Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this terrible matter. And…Your Welcome…just doing my job sir. Have a nice day.”

  17. Absolutely. If someone comes at me with a knife I shoot to kill as well. However they could have shot him in the legs. Like I said I would shot to kill, however, if I had 2 or 3 armed friends with me, like the police did, (I.E. Each other) I would have gone for the legs.

    • Bullshit. Anyone talking about shooting for the legs needs to stop watching so many movies. You shoot for center mass or not at all. Regardless, though, he wasn’t coming at the cops. If he was, sure, light his ass up. But he wasn’t. He had a knife in each hand, sure, but he wasn’t rushing them. Goddamn bloodthirsty bastards. People want to be cops so that they can commit murders like this.

    • Many police forces in the world do not agree with the “you only shoot center mass.” The German state police forces, have for decades shot an uncooperative perp in the buttocks or back of the upper thigh.

      Faced with a gun threat? Sure. Faced with fists or knives close in? Sure. Faced with a confused off-meds perp sixty feet away? No need to aim center mass if you have a shotgun. Why not save a life? Modern medicine can work wonders on a nut case provided the municipality has a mandatory med compliance program in place. We stopped letting LEOs pop two less lethal rounds in front of their buck or slug load “for safety.” The result seems to have become just more deaths by carbine and suicide-by-cop. I think I’ll research this a bit over the coming year.

      I’m fairly shocked that LEOs in many PDs don’t quickly draw a distinction between “off meds guy at a distance with no firearm” versus the close-in, quick, or gun-toting perp. Think I’ll get a copy of the local SOPs. It’s an interesting question.

      • do that. I am certain the SOPs will read the same way they do for every American agency. There will only one mention of shooting at limbs and such. “Don’t Do It”

  18. Hell, this was an execution. They knew he wasn’t rational (mentally ill) after confronting him as long as they did. You should listen to the civilian video…. When the guy was finally picking up his stuff to come with ’em, they throw a flash-bank and sic their dog on him. Then, when he reacts (what did they expect him to do?), they execute him. Way to go, Albuquerque… The new police chief should be fired for immediately saying it was justified – and the cops should be tried for murder.

  19. Sure, he pulled a knife out, but it looked like he was trying to defend himself because the dog was coming at him…. no? Hmmm can’t tell but didn’t it look like he was about to drop on the ground to comply or something?

  20. I’m surprised by the number of people here who do not automatically cry ‘murder.’ I think it’s because people here, unlike on random internet boards, respect knives and know how fast one can get cut from a few feet away.

    Here’s how I see the situation going wrong. The cops try to use less-lethal force (at least a flashbang- first bang in video not a shot) and it fails. The real problem was when the officer, maybe trying to save his dog, closes distance with the guy. All of the sudden the guy is an imminent threat. The police who fired weren’t the big problem, it was the one that screwed the pooch by getting close before the threat was reduced.

    • At the time of the shoot, it was a “good shoot.” Like you mentioned about the officer getting too close, however, the officers pretty much forced the situation to present itself. Intentionally, or not.

  21. The shooting was justified, as the anchors said that the man made threats against an unarmed officer that was attempting to apprehend him.

    • Good to know “the anchors” were present to make sure the guy was killed according to the book. Did they wear hiking boots?

  22. The guy was homeless, as are the 28% of homeless are vets! he may have been a vet.
    He clearly had mental problems. This was murder. They are killers . . . .period.
    You all need to be afraid of the police. . . Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc. All could have been handled without violence by WAITING.

    Oooppppsssss, coffee and a donut are waiting, time to get this over with, just like the guy in MI, in the parking lot with a knife, on the ground, cops are 20-30 feet away, shoot 47 times, hit 6 and kill him. Hell, I can shoot better than that, at least 5 cops opened up on the guy, that was murder too.

    Just like the guy in an auto accident in Charlotte, NC, a cop EMPTIED his firearm at the guy as he ran towards the cop for HELP! the guy was obviously confused SO don’t be confused around cops or you are dead, they will kill you.

  23. God forbid they leave the guy alone on top of a hill in the middle of nowhere. At least the police werent needed anywhere else, like the border, or ABQ.

  24. Hard to know what to say. Watched the video a few times, still unsure. I hate that arguments can be made to support each side. One thing I know for sure: if I’m was in that situation, I will comply with a lawful order from police and take my chance in court. Not worth losing my life. It is a shame that this happened.

  25. Rydak and his “lawful arrest”. One rule for the kings men, another for the mundanes/tax cows. If I had shot this man as a “civilian”. I’d be jailed and indicted for 2nd degree murder. These agents of the state treated a human being as worse than a belligerent animal. Pretty sick to defend it from the video I saw. Are you a state agent, Rydak?

    • Kings men? For defending their lives? They are public servants…not servants of a king.
      Animal?…they spend many hours trying to peacefully talk him down. He was not treated like an animal.
      Lawful Arrest? Yes we do live in a nation of laws, our founding fathers had many laws back then an used force quit a bit from the history I have read.

      You seem to revel in decisiveness…always making a tit for tat comparison of residents and police….as if they should somehow naturally be enemies. The same way Al Sharpton does with whites and blacks. This will not serve anyone well in the end. Any public servant should always be under a fine microscope….but this type of mindset is simply destructive.

      • As a former LEO who has testified in many felony cases in both State and Federal courts, your posts remind me of an officer back-pedaling on the stand under a strong cross examination.

        You are flip-flopping between “defending our lives” and “making lawful arrest” as justification for the shooting, or for creating the circumstances which ‘required’ the shooting.

        Review Garner v Tennessee. Killing someone to effect arrest is NOT legal. There is precisely zero case law I’ve ever heard that puts a time limit on how long it takes to make an arrest.

        Look at Hannibal’s post above…the officers are the ones that created the imminence of the threat by closing on him before he was secure. They had other options besides deadly force.

        Here in NC, we citizens lose our claim to self defense in a lethal force situation if we instigated the confrontation. You have admitted that this scenario would likely result in a citizen being convicted, and the part you are seem to be missing is


        It is NOT legal, or justifiable in any way, to kill someone to make the arrest. In Garner v Tennessee, it is clearly established that (unless some very specific rules are met), cops are not permitted to use deadly force for fleeing felons. If not justifiable for fleeing felons, it’s certainly not justifiable for mostly compliant, but resisting, misdemeanants.

        So, the issue becomes the knife. Had this occurred on the street, if an ordinary citizen had “rushed” a man, and the man pulled a knife, the rusher would quite possibly lose his SD claim. It is not clear to me that the cops “earn” an exception to that same level of scrutiny in their actions, as we have to always apply the standard of


        Your lack of looking at this from the outside and applying (a) different arguments at different times and (b) different standards to cops and citizens suggests to me that you are a relatively young cop. I could be wrong about that, but that’s my guess.

        I truly hope you are never in this situation…where are you on the receiving end of an investigation for murder because “it was time to end the stand off” or “he did not comply with lawful arrest.” Neither of those are likely to be adjudicated “justifiable homicide” in my humble opinion.

        And, do remember, everything you say can and will be used against you. You are now on the record on a public forum saying, or at the very least implying, that ‘time to end the standoff’ justified lethal force in your thinking.

        • “You are flip-flopping between “defending our lives” and “making lawful arrest” as justification for the shooting, or for creating the circumstances which ‘required’ the shooting.”

          — I am not flip flopping between anything. They were “making a lawful arrest” AND used deadly force when deadly force was brought to play against them.

          “Garner v Tennessee”
          — May have been awhile since you read that one.. Garner was jumping over a fence and running away. He used no weapons against the police.

          “the officers are the ones that created the imminence of the threat by closing on him before he was secure”
          –“Secure”??….yea that what they were trying to do…when he pulled two knives on them. ie: justifiable force.

          “They had other options besides deadly force.”
          — Which they used to no avail.

          “Here in NC, we citizens lose our claim to self defense in a lethal force situation if we instigated the confrontation. You have admitted that this scenario would likely result in a citizen being convicted, and the part you are seem to be missing is”
          —Yes, but as a retired officer you know that the police DO have not only te legal right but the duty to make the confrontation happen ie: custodial arrest. Talk about missing it…

          –No it doesnt,

          “It is NOT legal, or justifiable in any way, to kill someone to make the arrest. In Garner v Tennessee, it is clearly established that (unless some very specific rules are met), cops are not permitted to use deadly force for fleeing felons.
          — “(unless some very specific rules are met),”….yea…like pulling two deadly weapons on the officers. And he was not fleeing, but turning downward after the first shot from the cop on the right.

          “suggests to me that you are a relatively young cop.I could be wrong about that,”
          — You are sir. 25 years on. But my points would be no less valid if I just walked out of the academy.

          “I truly hope you are never in this situation…where are you on the receiving end of an investigation for murder because “it was time to end the stand off” ”
          — You are reading into things..I said it was time, because he had pulled the knives, the officers observed this…the camera from the helm did not. Until they got right up on him.

          “You are now on the record on a public forum saying, or at the very least implying, that ‘time to end the standoff’ justified lethal force in your thinking.”
          — No I am not, YOU are on the record ASSuming that I said that.

        • 25 years on? Why then do you sound like a fresh out of the academy, wet-behind-the-ears, scared-of-his-own-shadow rookie with all this stuff?

          Seriously. Ask yourself that.

          A LOT of wisdom in this thread lies in disagreement with you. Quite a few of those folks that are disagreeing with you have police experience (either current or past). Think about that.

          For example, check out the post by Accur81, where he talks about talking down a dude with a knife. The presence of a weapon does not mean “KILL KILL KILL.” As you continue to assert that it does, I seriously have to question your experience as a LEO.

          And yes, sir, you have flip flopped numerous times, as in changed the focus of your argument. If you cannot see that, I am in legitimate fear for the citizens in your jurisdiction. I mean, really, no crap, no lie. You need to re-assess your self-awareness.

          Sorry. Call ’em like I see ’em.

          But, keep trying. You might convince one person here you know what you are talking about. The rest of us see exactly what you are showing us.

        • JR:

          “Why then do you sound like a fresh out of the academy, wet-behind-the-ears, scared-of-his-own-shadow rookie with all this stuff?”

          — So your reply is to insult and denigrate me? Seems like you are void of facts. I guess if that’s all yea got then. Good day sir.

          “A LOT of wisdom in this thread”
          —-Mauahaha…yea, like “Give em the chair..cause I saw a video!” and AL citizens, you know who they are, wear they work and you know what to do. Please…

          “The presence of a weapon does not mean “KILL KILL KILL.””
          —-I never said that, It does mean deadly force can be used when those weapons are brought to bear on peace officers attempting to effect a lawful arrest after a four hour standoff.

          “Sorry. Call ‘em like I see ‘em.”
          —Thankfully you are no longer on the job (prob never were) cause you dont see very well.

          Retired LEO? From where? KMART Security? Ahh hell, now I’m starting to sound like you. No point in that. Just because we share different views does not mean insults are needed. Debate the facts….thats what I have been doing, save for some unmistakable trolling were desperately needed.

        • Rydak,

          I don’t want to believe you are a real cop. I’d rather believe you are a troll pretending to be one. Either way, I’m ignoring you from this point on, as you sound about 15 years old, maturity-wise, and dumber than a box of rocks.

          I recall someone here pointing out that forum posts are subpoenable. I don’t know if thats true, but you have put yourself in a hole if you are part of APD, IMHO, and if I were a real LEO I wouldn’t want you speaking for me, either.

          My two cents.

  26. Is “illegal camping” a capital offense? They simultaneously shot him and hit him with a “Taser”?? A “Taser” is a CATTLE PROD. And a police dog was rushing towards him? Would YOU get down on the ground with a dog charging towards you?

    Whom, exactly, was he hurting? I wouldn’t want a homeless crazy person living over the fence near where I live, but I don’t see that the cops did anything but execute the guy. They set up a scenario where they could shoot him and then they did exactly that.

    I appreciate that police work is thankless, but that video looks like a plain old murder to me. Regardless of how it’s painted.

  27. “It is unclear if Boyd was mentally ill.”

    Regardless of history, I’m pretty sure being harassed by authority figures with raging power-boners for a few hours will diminish just about anybody’s mental well being. Top it off with a flash-bang, and you’ve got yourself a man that not only doesn’t know what the f*** he is doing anymore, but probably can’t hear the orders being barked at him. You could probably get similar compliance from a stray dog that a group of people verbally abused for an hour, threw a flash-bang at, and then demanded “sit.”

    Police are trained to use assertive body language and deep speech to impose a dominant presence when interacting with people in public. While exploiting psychology in this way can be an effective tool against submissive personalities, it only serves to escalate conflicts with stubborn or aggressive personalities. As evidenced repeatedly, escalated police incidents lead to officer involved shootings and somebody ends up wounded or dead. Maybe cops aren’t the answer to every little problem?

    I’ve seen it written on this site before, and I’ll beat that dead horse again… Police are not properly trained to deal with mentally ill people. I would even wager that police are exacerbating and/or creating temporary mental illness in the people confront. Mental well-being is a very fluid thing and nobody is unbreakable.

    • Not only are they not trained to deal with the mentally ill, no doubt some police are struggling to deal with their own mental illness.

      I’d have to see and read more about this shooting to come to a conclusion, but it’s not looking good from what I’ve seen so far.

  28. i wasn’t there, so I’m not saying yes or no. what i did notice is that the days of officers pulling a pump action shotgun from the squad car are long gone. the ar’s that the cops had were more tacticooled out than the ones in the video games i have.

  29. Don’t forget that this took place in New Mexico. You know, the same state where the state patrolman emptied his pistol into a van full of children? Life seems to be cheap there if you’re not an LEO.

  30. Unjustified. No attempt at mace, dogs or a taser really? Why the hell did it even last so long? It was a blatant overreaction.

    • They had the bean bag shotgun, but it doesn’t appear that they used it until he was breathing his last breaths on the ground.

      • It appears they were using the bean bag to see if the guy was dead or not before they reached in to turn him over.

    • MACE…lol

      “Why did it even last so long” (and then in the next breath he says) “It was blatant overreaction”
      Um,…because they tried very very hard and LOONG to talk him down…that would have been my guess
      Dear god..

  31. Does it really matter if we think it was right or wrong? You know how the investigation is going to come back.

    • Well then in that case…. I don;t think those officers even have to try and explain themselves…..they already KNOW how the interwebs commando community is going to rule it.

      • They could have gotten a rope and hung him, the chief would still say it was justified. When was the last time an officer was convicted of a bad shoot? If the two trigger happy nutjobs who shot up the wrong color, and wrong make and model of truck didn’t even get canned then these guys won’t even get a stern talking too.

        • No they won’t because the people who judge them will actually look at facts. You know….like that and all.

        • They will look at the facts, discard them and rule in favor of the police, because if they didn’t, you union boys would threaten a walk out.

        • @Irock,

          Regarding Rydak, He obviously didn’t get what you were talking about when he mentioned “facts.” Fact was over 100 bullets struck the mailmen’s car. Fact was the 47 year old lady (mailman… or mailwoman) was struck in the back by two bullets. Fact was she did nothing but deliver mail. Fact was the police did not look behind their targets and struck multiple houses and yards. Fact was the police did not know who was in the vehicle and assumed it was dorner. To this situation Rydak says… you guessed it…

          No they won’t because the people who judge them will actually look at facts. You know….like that and all.

          Completely delusional.

          The more cases we have of this unjustified homicide of trigger happy cops ready to defend themselves at whatever threat they perceive (real or imaginable), the more Michael Astorga’s come out of the wood works. Then we can see some cops taking a dirt nap.

  32. Angry and sarcastic first impressions aside, this incident is a tragedy. The public needs to see these videos to be informed on what is being done by state actors in the name of “public safety.” Hopefully the citizens of Albuquerque are horrified and force reform on their local police force. Police are trained, well equipped, and are compensated to take their time to enable better alternatives than just shooting someone who breaks the law. A knife is a deadly weapon, but if a random group of armed hikers surrounded a homeless man on public land, set a dog on him, etc. and shot him when he did not react specifically as they expected no jury would think that was justified. These policemen took the easy way out when they had every advantage. That man on the hillside deserved better.

  33. disregarding if you think it is a good or bad shoot.

    Facts are facts. If a “civilian” shot and killed a man that had 2 knives in his hand and was that distance away while not charging or otherwise in the immediate act of attacking them… the civilian would be in jail right now talking to his attorney and planning a murder defense regardless of stand your ground laws.

    Of course the cops get to celebrate another successful kill with not so much as a worry, because you know, they’re cops and cops can do no wrong.

    Better thing, make the guy holding the knives an off duty cop that is actively threatening a civilian, civilian shoots the cop, the civilian would be lucky to not go to jail for the rest of his life, because, you know, cop.

    • You’re pretty close on. . . If the shooters in this case were not cops they would in be jail right now for murder. The video says it all, the man is armed with knives but is actually turning away when the shooting starts, not aggressing anyone. There must be a price to pay for this, lets hope one is exacted from these murders.

      • No, Argent, the man was armed with A knife, he turned and grabbed his second knife,…then was shot. But hey…you see what you want in this video I guess.

        You are correct about one thing “There is a price to pay” Yes there always is. But that price will not be paid by officers who have done nothing wrong but defend themselves against a deranged man.

        The price of ignorance is a life long thing and the toll is a steep one. Maybe installment plans will work for you?

        • Are you staying up all night to troll, RydaK? Are you on the job? Are you in the SOC or the NOC? Does your supervisor know what you’re doing? Do you even have a life?

        • My, my, Rydak that’s the second blatant ad hominem attack from you on me. What is it you don’t like about me? Is it that I defy your ‘authority’? I think JWM had you pegged, very young, hot headed and full of yourself. You’re arguments on this thread reek of desperation. You can’t be that worried about our opinion of the cops on the video and so the only likely explanation is that you need to justify their actions for some internal reason of your own. Have you considered that it might be more comfortable and satisfying to simply change your attitude than it would be to convince every other person in the world that it’s alright to murder people as long as you’re a cop?

        • Ardent

          “You’re arguments on this thread reek of desperation.”

          —Really? How…I see only factual debate. Not screams for murder of these men, which is basically 3/4 of the posts on this page. Desperate…you use that word. Not sure you understand it’s meaning.

        • Ardent, I never said those things about Rydak. That, I believe was JR. The only comment I made was about complying with the cops when they show up. Any other action can only end badly.

        • I did say he sounded young. And, I stand by that. He’s too unglued in accepting criticism to have much real world experience dealing with confrontation.

          My two cents, but really, it’s just a guess based on his posts in this thread.

          Don’t think I said anything specifically about him being hot headed. Although, now that you mention it…

        • —Really? How…I see only factual debate. Not screams for murder of these men, which is basically 3/4 of the posts on this page. Desperate…you use that word. Not sure you understand it’s meaning.

          “Factual debate” Sure. Based on the imaginary projection of heroic police officers of justice in a video saving themselves, their dog, and the world from the most heinous villain – a homeless camper with pocket knives who happens to be scared of dogs.

    • That’s how you know this sad tragedy didn’t have to happen. A normal citizen bound by law wouldn’t have decided to force a confrontation and kill the man. At least now, with the ubiquitous presence of cameras, more people can see the police militarization problem and vote for reform. Little comfort to victims of “good shoot opportunities” that will occur in the interim, however.

  34. Forget, for now, about good shoot/bad shoot. Just how far from civilization are homeless people supposed to camp, anyway? They have to at least have access to food and water.

    • This was my thought. Where’s he supposed to go? Leave him be and wait for him to fall asleep. The offense is not worth escalating for. Just like a fleeing suspect at 120 mph, just back off him and catch him another day. It’s not worth the cops or anyone else’s life to bust him “at all costs”. That’s what is wrong with this scenario. No common sense.

  35. Eh- looks like a good shoot in a bad situation.
    Cops would have been better served by using other less lethal options- a 20# riot control spray can comes to mind.
    But, botom line is- pull a weapon on a cop and die.

    • Ironically the “criminal” did not even have a gun. The knives are a red herring. He could have had a cane, or a tree branch, or a small rock and it still would have been a “good shoot.”

      • maybe so, but then along the same lines, anytime another country disagrees with us, we should just obliterate them with nuclear weapons.

        • If you had been paying attention, you would have noticed people around here aren’t the biggest fans of unfettered aggression by the state.

        • gee Dave… if you had paid attention to the conversation that CLarson and I are having, you would recognize that your comment has no bearing whatsoever. I would gently remind you that its impossible, unless you are one of those interwebz geniuses, for you to ascertain as to the depth to which I have followed the conversation taking place in the comments.

  36. I was in AZ when this went down and it was all over the news everyday for a week when I was there.

    My only question is this, you can always start with non-lethal and then escalate to lethal. Why didn’t they start with a few bean bags to the chest or groin and let the dog in and then subdue him.

    My only issue is what was is the reason for shooting before non-lethal was used.

    • The live-leak helmet cam video is just astounding. As for those who say the homeless guy wasn’t shot in the back, I’ll put $20 down that he was. Less lethal? After the perp was shot at least four times and was on the ground on his belly, the less lethal officer jumped in, shouted “bean bag, bean bag” and fired three rounds at what was essentially a dead guy.

      I’ll put the video into frame-by-frame, but it certainly looked as though the idiot perp was not being violent at the moment some jackass decided the timing was perfect to throw a flash-bang and send in the dog handler….instead of just letting the less lethal guy do his job. The scene ranks as ‘disturbing’ but also demonstrates why helmet (and collar) cams are an extremely good idea, and should be mandatory.

  37. At ~0:15, on the left, in the newsroom with Chris Mckee, WHAT IS ABOVE THAT GUYS HEAD ON THE LEFT? Does anyone else see what I see?

  38. “All non-lethal options were deployed”. This is not in question. Normally however, non-lethal and lethal options are not deployed simultaneously. IMO there was no escalation of force here. The subject was simply assassinated.

    • If you view the carbine shooter’s helmet cam video, you’ll see that the less lethal gun didn’t shoot until the carbineros had finished the guy off. Bizarre.

  39. To the people of Albuquerque: You know who committed this blatant murder, You know their names and what they look like. You also know where they work and it shouldn’t be hard to find out where they live. You know what to do … So go DO IT!

    • Oh nice. I’m guessing the Alex Jones channel was offline tonight so you came here?

      Vigilante murder in response to a video. No need to wait for a medical examiners findings or a court’s findings right? From an internet video? Hey is that why Bengazi happened?

      Robert you sure do attract the nice ones.

      • You don’t seem to require any evidence to exonerate these officers of murder but insist that we wait for evidence before condemning them of the same? Hypocrisy is an ugly thing. Uglier still when it’s used in a apology for murders.

        • “You don’t seem to require any evidence to exonerate these officers of murder ”

          —Evidence ins need to CONVICT them of murder. They are innocent already. Constitution, read it much?

  40. Ya so what gang was he in? Oh that s right the cops don t go after gangs csuse they shoot back so let s go kill a homeless man cause we are bored and we can send eight guys to the boonies and we won t have to go after any real crooks in the hood!

  41. Wow… just wow.

    What’s enlightening is how every single law enforcement officer seems to be closing ranks to support this shooting. Not the least criticism, not even, “Gee, maybe that wasn’t necessary, but I can see how someone might make that mistake.”

    Nope, it’s “That’s what he gets for disobeying a lawful order.”

    I think that’s great. It’s important to see how law enforcement sees citizens.

    You’re an animal. And if you step out of line you’ll get shot. Then they’ll let you bleed out on a hill side. They’ll make snide remarks and joke about it over beers. If anyone challenges them they’ll close ranks and say it was justified.

    What happened to this country?

    • “That’s what he gets for disobeying a lawful order.”

      Thats not the way I see it. Nobody deserves to be shot for disobeying an order from police. Thats plain silly.

      It should read: ““That’s what he gets for confronting police with a knife in each hand.”

      So many are not seeing the actual bad thing here, just as so many anti gun people never see it. This is yet another deranged man, who slipped thru or was outright ignored by the mental health system. Tragic encounters like this are a fordrawn conclusion until we stop ignoring people with mental illnesses.

      • So if you are flash banged and attacked by a dog, you won’t try to defend yourself? The guy was being attacked and he reacted defensively. If tactical tom had not have decided to flash bang Boyd and then set loose the dog, the situation would have been different. Boyd pulled a knife after he was attacked by the gang in blue, not before. Just seconds before dopey threw his flashbang Boyd was using both of his hands to carry his bags.he wasn’t a threat until they threatened him.

        • There is no defense against a lawful arrest. Only a defense in court.

          What if he thought that arresting him was offensive and he needed to defend himself against? Which he did and said he would. Then what? Nobody ever gets arrested? Oh cool. Good idea.

  42. We got a knife wielding man out of an illegal lodging situation just two weeks ago. I had a bean bag shotgun, and a .40 pistol. We had plenty of lethal and less lethal weapons, but ended up talking the guy out. We arrested him for brandishing, and he’ll be out of jail in a few weeks. No use of force.

    However, I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if the guy we arrested winds up stabbing someone after he gets released. Heck, he may manage to stab someone in jail.

    As for this one, I don’t see why they couldn’t have taken him into custody with the less lethal weapons.

    • And you’d get my second vote to be Rydak’s training officer.

      Really. If the younger, “gung ho” cops of the modern day had seen some of the things the good old boys dealt with without killing people 30 years (or more) ago…they’d piss their pants.

      It seems to me like “use of force continuum” is fast becoming “use of force leap to the top.”

      • Actually, the force continuum is in full effect here…clear as day. Suspect brings to bear two deadly weapons when officers are attempting to make a lawful arrest…equals deadly force.

        You have forgotten much or never were a police officer. Ever.

    • I have heard (I don’t know how accurate this is) that one of the guys with a non-lethal shotgun opened up first and then officers with firearms started shooting. It could possibly be a tragic case of sympathetic fire.

      • That thought crossed my mind for the officer with the helm cam. I do not , in hind sight of course and from the comfort of my home, believe that he should have shot. It also doesn’t look like he fired the fatal shot…or sadly, even hit the guy.

  43. 1) what kind of a moron throws a flash bang in a open area like that?
    2) sorry this time it wasn’t a good shoot, these things happen.
    3) why the shit does the cop have a suppressor, do you really need it? No you don’t right now, no doughnut for you.

    • 1.) The kinda that is trained in their proper use.
      2.) Good Shoot it was.
      3.) “Need”? Because they do what they do. Make things less noisy

    • I have zero problems with cops using suppressors. None. It lets them fire without using hearing protection without going deaf and without deafening those nearby. If you were designing any other workplace tool for safety, you would prefer to eliminate the hazard at the source rather than rely on PPE. It’s no different for guns.

      • I agree. And there should be no heavy restriction like there currently is for the rest of society, that is one silly law. Purchasing a suppressor should be the same as purchasing a firearm IMHO. That law needs to be repealed.

  44. I really wanted to be on the side of the police after hearing that this guy was in and out of prison and mental institutions for most of his life. I can imagine him bugging out as I and my loved ones walking by and him taking a box cutter to one of our faces (this happened where I live). What would my restitution be, I get to keep my life with permanent facial scars? What, they’ll throw him in jail again. We’re all better without this person however….wtf, that was a shitty shoot. I watched the raw video on liveleak and I don’t see how that was remotely justified.

    The shit show started with poor tactics, what the fuck was with the flash bang as the guy started to comply? Why send the dog out, fucking taze him if you want to cuff him on the ground. I know I get to watch the replay on youtube and wasn’t there for the live action but damn, I saw him running away with back turned when shot.

    Did one of the cops say “boo ya” after he shot him?

    The guy with the head cam muzzles the dog a couple times after the guy went down.

    …fucking poor performance all around.

  45. This video, paired with the response to the Boston bombing, sends child down my spine. Put two and two together, folks… As LEO’s on this this site have said above- their number one goal is getting home unscathed. Sadly, that involves a hyperproactive approach to the use of deadly force. The man could easily have been OC’d, tazered, or beanbagged. The clip of the police beanbagging a dying and incapacitated man, in an effort to save face, is beyond pathetic. The idea of “making it home” has been contorted into something horrible. Hat’s off to all the good LEO’s out there- Lord knows there are lots. Just wish there were more of the, and less trigger happy, arm breaking thugs. I fear all that we’ve seen building up in this social pressurer cooker is just a prelude to something much bigger… I pray that is not the case. To TTAG- request you link to the full video, rather than some local news station’s white washed , kid friendly cut.

  46. I’m not going to comment on the right or wrong of this shoot but, I do find it interesting that some of you fine folks are getting away with saying thing about each other and the police that you would never get away with saying about Ms Watts or any other gun grabber.

  47. Don’t wanna armchair quarterback, but isn’t one of the officers holding a Mossberg X12? So instead of shooting the guy, couldn’t they have sent down a few XREP rounds down range?

    • What I REALLY want to know, is why was the flash-bang thrown? It is meant for temporary distraction and disorientation. They throw it and then do NOTHING. First thing they should have done, IF they felt necessary to act, is fire a can of pepper spray at him. Or hey, after the flashbang just scared and pissed the guy off, SHOOT A DAMN CAN OF PEPPER SPRAY AT HIM. They did not exhaust their less-lethal options before getting themselves into a situation that necessitated (possibly) lethal force. In their situation, yeah, it’s maybe 50/50 that lethal force was necessary, BUT it was 100% the polices fault for creating the situation. If they were all at the range that the helmet cam man was at, a knife has NO threat. But the dumb-ass k9 unit trying to be within 15 feet of the guy made it a threat.

  48. If there was only SOME WAY to avoid getting shot while pulling a knife or two on a bunch of police pointing guns at you. Sadly, I think this was entirely unavoidable. /sarcasm.

    It’s interesting to note that this video shows the last time this guy pulled any knives on police officers pointing guns at him. There’s a lesson in there somewhere.

    You guys did see the knife in his cold, dead hand in the video, right? Yeah, good shot.

    • Did YOU see the part where the (obviously mentally ill/paranoid man, with a history to prove it) was asking the police not to murder him, and where the police flat out said they were not going to do anything “stupid?”

      And, right after that, where the guy slung a backpack, piked up a small bag with his left hand, grabbed a water bottle with his right? Yea, because people who are about to attack you pick stuff with their hands.

      And the part where, while the guy is complying with officers and saying he will “walk down with you,” they flash-bang him, send a malinois after him and aggressively close distance on him?

      When the police force an absurdly unnecessary fight/flight response out of a *compliant* subject and switch to victim mode when he makes a halfhearted, and short lived, instant reaction towards defending himself.

      They could have tasered him. Or sweet talked him into putting down his gear and sitting down so they could cuff him. Or hit him with the beanbag. Or done about 7 other things than this shock and awe crap.

      Essentially, this became a shit show once they tossed the flash bang. His reaction to their unnecessarily aggressive act is on the police.

      • Did YOU see the part where the (obviously mentally ill/paranoid man, with a history to prove it) was asking the police not to murder him, and where the police flat out said they were not going to do anything “stupid?”

        Actually, I forwarded to the part where they removed the knife from his cold, dead hand. But are you saying that he wasn’t a threat because he was obviously mentally ill? It’s good to know that the [armed] mentally ill aren’t dangerous. The families of numerous victims of mentally ill mass murderers might disagree.

        Sorry, but crazies don’t get a pass to pull knives on cops (or the rest of us) just because they’re crazy. I prefer to live in a world where folks who pull knives on cops get shot, than one where they don’t. Simple as that.

        • Aaannnddd… again, the knives didn’t come out until after the police aggressively attacked (flash bang/dog/surge forward with ARs) him.

          Go through the video frame-by-frame. His gear is on the ground and those two knives are out in roughly 1.5 seconds. That isn’t a conscious thought – it’s the reflexive self defense action of someone who is switched-on to living in a high threat environment (i.e. homeless dude living rough for years and years).

          In this situation, the police have an absolute responsibility to protect the suspect from his own actions. He was not an emergent threat to the general public. He was surrounded by well-armed cops who had plenty of control over their distance to him. They had less than lethal standoff options (bean bags, the K9, Tasers, OC spray). They also had a history with the guy and were well aware that he was mentally ill and homeless; their job is to recognize the implications of those facts and formulate their takedown plans around them.

          Was it murder? No, but it was absolutely negligent manslaughter. The cops were the ones in-control of the situation and they used absolutely inappropriate tactics given the overall situation.

        • “Aaannnddd… again, the knives didn’t come out until after the police aggressively attacked (flash bang/dog/surge forward with ARs) him.”

          —ANNNND the lethal shots didnt come out until AFTER the two deadly weapons in his hands did. Funny how that escalated is it not? I think its not. The man brought deadly weapons to bear on LEOs and was met with greater force as required by law.

        • “…as required by law.

          Huh? WTF?

          Someone produces a weapon and cops are “required” to shoot?

        • Reply to nnjj:

          No, I don’t think anyone is saying that he was not a threat because he was mentally ill.t

          I think they are saying the knife was not a threat because the threat was not credible.

          It’s not enough to SEE a weapon..the EXISTENCE of a weapon does not constitute a deadly threat. The circumstances still have to meet ability, opportunity and jeopardy.

          In this case, with a knife (or two…that does not matter, really), ability might be met, but the other two legs of that triangle, especially jeopardy, as in “imminence” are iffy at best.

          And, if the post shows one of those bullet tracks enter from the back as well, well, you can kiss “justifiable” out the door most likely, presence of the knife or not.

      • Yep.

        The cops wanted to get to play with their toys, so they pushed the guy until they had an excuse to light him up.

        If I were on a jury of this case, it’s a pretty open-n-shut case: There was no reasonable threat until the officers created a situation where there was a threat. They instigated this, so they have no “self defense” claim, any more than a private citizen who starts a fight has a claim of self defense.

    • Isn’t context important when police decide to shoot? Would it be o.k. for police to open fire on an open carry protest? Or on a little girl posing for a photo with a firearm?
      Was there a possibility that the homeless man was going to somehow prevail? I thought the A.I. were of the opinion that objects like guns and knives do not have magical powers. I am dubious that a single cop on that hill was afraid for his life, which is the usual standard for self defense.
      As it stands now, if police can frame events into certain scenarios they get carte blanche to use lethal force. I am about convinced that flash bangs and dogs should be removed from the police arsenal as they serve no use but to escalate and cause confusion. I know how I will be voting when the police ask for more funding in my community.

      • CLarson:

        Well said.

        If I were on the jury during the murder trial of these officers, I would very seriously be thinking about the ‘objective reasonableness’ standard ‘fear for my life’ is supposed to meet.

    • The video reminds me of guys in high school who wanted to fight, when their desired opponent wasn’t interested. So the ass bumps into the guy, his books fall on the floor, and the bully demands the guy pick then up, and starts a shoving match and then punches fly.

      The video shows the homeless guy packing up and agreeing to cooperate. Then, out of the blue a flash-bang is thrown and the dogs are released. The handler follows the dogs in. The homeless man has dropped the objects in his hands and grabbed his knives quite clearly to defend against the dogs. -Flash forward to the police chief saying “they had to shoot him. He pulled knives on an unarmed cop.”

      But wait, that’s not all, there’s more: The less lethal shotgun guy realizes it should have been him, not some unarmed dog handler, that reacted if the homeless gun turned aggressive….to he moves in to shoot the dying homeless guy three times. -Flash forward to the police chief saying “less lethal options were deployed.” Yep. We noticed. Remarkable.

    • Yeah, but why force that situation when only seconds before he was complying? “Look out, he’s complying!”

  49. ‘Good’ shoot?

    More like a great MURDER…caught on tape, and political fucktards making ‘legal’ excuses for it. Sadly, like Miranda, the victim, the accused, the suspect are always of savory character, but just remember: it’s no matter whom it’s done to, you allow govt criminality, they will eventually, ALWAYS get around to using it against you.


    They shot him several times, again, after Boyd was face down, AFTER the first few bursts from his AR, then they hit him again with bean bag, stepped on him, had the mut chew on his leg, then huffed and puffed like pansy bitches and thought it heroic accomplishment to finally put cuffs on a dead body full of holes ventilating blood in real time.

    Good Job Nazis! You’ll certainly be put up for more metal trinkets, and praise for the Orc guild of equally sub-100IQ retards in ComicCon CosPlay StarWars SS-drag.

    At this rate, wouldn’t be surprised at all, should the terrorists raid the ‘wrong home’ of a combat vet and murder his daughter sleeping on the family couch ‘by accident,’ instead, and the PD CaptShit does the routine, now de rigeuer presser extolling the virtues of a how it was a “‘justifiable’ shooting homicide” & how it’s “within department policy” (which apparently is good enough for the ever brain-dead Amerikan sheeple populace who have no clue that “dept policy” has no weight of the law, nor is it legal, under any statutes, or under the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution for the United States of America) wouldn’t be surprised if the surviving father and his Marine buddies reminisce about Faluja and see if they still have the same level of aptitude and figure whether a non-linear range maybe the best place to catch up…

    Best part? no one will give a fuck what happens; by then, S would’ve definitely HTF. People will be screaming for a Pay-per-View Nuremberg 2.0…the post-sentencing screenplay.

    The terrorists are certainly planning; the terrorists view everyone not employed by govt as the enemy. They’re planning and training for it. Frankly, they’re so open and public about it it’s almost sci-fi level comical, the denial from the Blue Pilled are even more galactically hilariously tragic; the blatantly self-evident nature of it defies one’s radar for fiction, it’d be clearly seen as a comedy if it were handed off to a casting director for a film: Homeland Security Exercise Targets “Free Americans Against Socialist Tyranny”

    “The U.S. Northern Command mission of Defense Support to Civil Authorities has led to increased activity by some anti-government organizations,” states the document. “Currently, the most vocal organization is Free Americans against Socialist Tyranny; using social media, they advertise anti-U.S. rhetoric focusing on the Department of Defense as well as to recruit like-minded individuals to join their “cause”.

    “While some Free Americans against Socialist Tyranny members are capable of conducting adverse cyber operations, the greatest threat is current government employees sympathetic to their cause,” the document adds. “It is believed that there are employees within US Northern Command, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, National Guard, and Defense Information Systems Agency that may support Free Americans against Socialist Tyranny doctrine based on individual comments on social media sites. Free Americans against Socialist Tyranny sympathizers may include both former and current members of the military with training on satellite communications, computer network defense, network operations, as well as military command and control.”

    DHS’ Domestic Terror Warning Angers GOP
    By CBSNewsCBS/AP
    April 16, 2009, 2:23 AM
    IA-0257-09 UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (U//FOUO) Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment

    Republicans said Wednesday that a Homeland Security Department intelligence assessment unfairly characterizes military veterans as right-wing extremists.

    The party’s leader in the House of Representatives, Rep. John Boehner, described the report as offensive and demanded that the agency apologize to veterans.

    The agency’s intelligence assessment, sent to law enforcement officials last week, warns that right-wing extremists could use the bad state of the U.S. economy and the election of the country’s first black president to recruit members. (Click here for the full DHS report, in PDF form.)

    The longer the denial persists among the 2A set, the harsher the reality check will be, when the final Rubicon is crossed…

    • 1. You are delusional about the facts of this case and are pressing an agenda.
      2, “then huffed and puffed like pansy bitches”…that was the dog wincing from it’s handler holding his collar to keep him off the downed suspect.

  50. You’ve GOT to be kidding me! You’ve got the nerve to ask if murder is “good”? You’ve got to be as corrupt as the rest of this nation’s leaders (read: owners). The continued and increasing number of cold-blooded murders taking place by the “police” (read: owner’s army).
    These “police” are armed and armored better than FU@#ING ROBOCOP and it’s nothing for them to just pull a gun and KILL anyone who believes there’s a Constitution, Bill of Rights and citizenry who THEY are answerable to! Yeah, these “police” have their own supervisors who say “Hey! These fine officers were justified in murdering this low-life, unarmed CITIZEN, no matter WHAT he was doing. Like, ummm, minding his business, not bothering anyone, just trying to be somewhere when his life has left him nothing. Oh yeah! Let’s just let the cops murder all the homeless people. That way they’ll no longer be an eyesore. Then the “police” can start murdering the people on welfare and food stamps. Then after they’re done killing those low-life, useless excuses for citizenry, we can let them loose on the middle class losers!!
    Remember, if you don’t speak up for those “under” you when they’re being victimized, who do you think will speak up for you when they come for you? Oh! You think it won’t happen. Go ahead then son. Bury your head in the sand until they grab you and lock your wrists behind your back and shoot you in the head with the ‘excuse’ “He was resisting arrest!”

  51. Apparently, we got ourselves a unicorn fetcher:

    Rydak says:
    March 24, 2014 at 22:45

    Its the law of all states. You fight your battles in court, not with the enforcers of the law.

    Sure, once you’re bankrupt, and assuming the court system is fair, just, and DA & cops don’t lie for a living.



    Apparently you haven’t had the pleasure of driving through NM with cops from out of county jurisdiction run a gig where he takes you to a douchebag doctor who’s willing to do illegal anal probing, 8 times, all with nothing found, because you seemed to be constipated and made ‘gotta go to the bathroom’ cringe on your face:

    Sure, why not be a policestate-dildo fucker and trust terrorists with proven evil intent and reputation. ‘Cause that’s what you’d do in real life with anyone not delusional enough to walk around the bulk of their lives wearing ComicCon nerd costumes all day, right?

    LOL. You wanna know why the American Republic is where we are today? People like you end up on jury, and actually allow institutionalized criminal behavior to continue and have this idiotic “so what? wait your turn, and go through the court system.” Never mind that it’s never fair, you never have proper legal counsel, by law and oath, both prosecution and defense works are the “officers of the court” not YOUR legal defense, capice?

    Yap, when you don’t have cops for friends or family, and see the persistent need to defend the murmurs of a Stasi policestate. Then again, the fact that you’ve been so adamently going on and on about it, you’re a lost ’cause anyway.

    Go back to team Obama, advocating for gun-ban. You’re just another closet fascist statist by any other name.

    • Its the law of all states. You fight your battles in court, not with the enforcers of the law.

      “Sure, once you’re bankrupt, and assuming the court system is fair, just, and DA & cops don’t lie for a living.”

      Well thats your choice guy. Most who take the second option dont fair well. You don’t like the laws? Well then, maybe you came move to a state where they…oh thats right, its the law in ALL states, and have always been. And if you like living in a civilized world…it always will be. What criminal do you know that would allow himself to be arrested if he thought there was a way he could have a court session right there on the street? or better yet….fight the cops and if he got away….”all is good”. Thats not how the laws of this country or any other county work. But the again…there are over 100 countries….I havent reviewed all of their laws. Not sure I need to, this happened in THIS country and it a shame how it ended, but it doesn’t mean the cops are murders or even in the wrong.

      • Its the law of all states.
        I am certain the SOPs will read the same way they do for every American agency.

        What are you trying to be? Another Clarence Darrow? You’re talking through your hat, sonny.

        • Ahh, no, its the truth. It is the law of all states in this union. Nice to see that you did not acknowledge that.

      • I find myself wondering if you are defending these bone heads out of a sense of solidarity – or if you Rydak, at some time in your official capacity have done the same thing.

    • Rydak believes you shouldn’t resist him as he’s hauling you into the hospital for an illegal anal probing. If you do he’s gonna knock your teeth out and you’ll get slapped with resisting arrest, obstructing justice and assaulting an officer.

      Don’t like it? Deal with it in court. He won’t get in trouble and your neighbors will end up paying the settlement. He doesn’t give a ****.

      • “Rydak believes you shouldn’t resist him as he’s hauling you into the hospital for an illegal anal probing.’

        –Like the video, you are reading into my comments. If a cop (Def not me) was hauling you in for an “ILLEGAL” anything. You would have a right to use force to resist. Seriously…anal probe? lol

        –This however was NOT an illegal arrest.

  52. Good shot…yes. However, don’t believe the cop with the AR didn’t need to fire…didn’t appear as if he could see anything and only fired after hearing his friends doing so.

    • Id have to agree with that one, the first office (to the right) likely fired the fatal shot. He fired first and almost certainly hit him center of chest. Thats what caused him to lunge down and to the left. What so many internet lawyers here are saying he was “running away”

      The second officer fired upon hearing his college fire. That however is just a guess (Disclaimer) on my part.

  53. The APD is in the spotlight for their officer involved use of deadly force, and under a court ordered review of same. The ABQ Journal newspaper had a long investigational series outlining this which was seriously disturbing. Chief of APD “retired” under pressure.

    • You know, regardless of what Rydak thinks, this could be fodder for a Civil Rights beef if this is part of an ongoing pattern. FBI don’t mess around. And they don’t go away. Our county police had just gotten rid of them when they decided to beat the sh!t out of some college kids and it was caught on video. Guess who came back…

  54. I watched it several times and I really don’t understand why they had to use lethal force to put him down.

    It appears that he had actually turned and was attempting to run away when they shot him at least seven times (if I am counting the shots accurately). I wonder why they didn’t just let the dog go after him. Or Taser him, or …

    From what can be seen on the video, and perhaps there is more, it doesn’t look right to me.

    • Maybe they were afraid he would cut the dog with a knife. After all, a police dog’s life is more important than the life of a homeless bum.

      It appears to me they didn’t seek to deescalate the situation. Maybe it was the classic big-head cop approach of “do what we say or we will shoot you and say that you reached for something.” He turned and they had their excuse to end his life and get back to their office donuts and coffee.

      • Yea because the entire incident lasted as long as that video?!?!…..they were there for HOURS trying to end it peacefully.

    • Come on Paul, didn’t you know that illegal camping (squatting) and resisting arrest are capital offenses that warrant the death penalty?

      To answer your question:
      They didn’t turn the dog loose on the man because the man had knives and presumably would have seriously injured or killed the dog. And since the dog is a “police officer”, they couldn’t take any chances so they killed the man.

      It is pretty sad when the life of a “police dog” is worth more than a human being.

  55. Without seeing everything (and only having this short clip available), it appears that the police escalated this situation unnecessarily and this guy died unnecessarily. Shooting someone over illegal camping? Come on.

    And you can armchair quarterback this one all day long…wouldn’t tazers have been more appropriate…hey, what about the bean bag guns that Agent Terry had available to him along the border when he was killed?…there was no time limit on this encounter…it looked to be out in the middle of nowhere and this guy was a threat to nobody (it appears that public safety would not be a major factor), so why the haste in shooting him (even after 3 hours, shooting the guy should have been the absolute last course of action)…and one last thing to consider, if this was a non-LEO civilian shooting another civilian, he/she would likely be found guilty of murder by the fact that this guy was probably shot in the side and the back. Not in the chest. He appeared to be no threat to anyone at the point when they shot him. Again, you can armchair quarterback this one all day long on both sides.

  56. There is a middle ground. It was, in my opinion, a bad shoot because the police clearly had better options than a flash bang and K9 assault, but it was a legal shoot once the perp pulled a knife. Not all that different from G Zimmerman. He should not have pursued T Martin, but once Martin attacked him he had a right to defend himself.

  57. Rydak – This guy is the reason (even good) people don’t like or trust the Police anymore. His answer is resistance is futile. This the the mindset of police officers folks. It doesn’t matter if they get the wrong house on a no-knock raid and bust in your door while you are still asleep. If you hear someone in your house, give up, because if it is the police and you don’t “Submit” instantly while you are still half asleep or have the gall to grab a gun and question why your home is being invaded, they shoot you and go pat themselves on the back.

    It is sad where people like me, who do nothing illegal, literally worry at night about police kicking down the wrong door.

    Yes, I have relatives that are good, upstanding people that are police officers, but this is what they are taught. “Too bad whatever your circumstance, but WE the police are all going home safe tonight, and if someone else gets shot, they must have done something wrong.”

    • I agree with your assessment. The big head authoritarian cop should not belong in law enforcement. He sees things only his way and people wrongfully die because of it. Rydak only made about 1/2 of all the posts on this page in support of cowardice cops mowing down people because they aren’t simply “complying.” My guess is – he is one of those types of police officers.

      • “Rydak only made about 1/2 of all the posts on this page in support of cowardice cops mowing down people because they aren’t simply “complying.”

        If by “arent simply complying” you mean pulling two deadly weapons on police after a four hour standoff? Then yes.

    • “His answer is resistance is futile.” If by resistance you mean with two deadly weapons….once in each hand. Then yes. No person in their right mind would suggest that we as a nation change our laws to: “Well…if you can outfight the police…you can go free, especially if your having a bad day, or a bad childhood or are homeless or….etc”

      • There needs to be some recourse for the civilians who have to pay for the polices mistakes. Qualified immunity has led to a huge imbalance of power and criminal activity by your brethren. Every time a Judge adjudicates in favor of the defendant, the police should foot the court costs without first having to be drug kicking and screaming to civil court. That would put a stop to a lot of harassment.

        • +1 If every police shooting had to be reviewed by a jury, the cops on that hillside would have acted differently. Police are citizens and should be answerable to their fellow citizens, not given special immunity.

  58. Dude appeared to be complying with them, albeit with a knife in his hands. Dude should have dropped his knives THEN started complying, but I think someone had an itchy trigger finger and that set off a similarly itchy trigger finger. I don’t think it’s as clear as black and white “he had a knife, and so the police shot him and it was justified”. It will likely be skewed that way by the police, but anyone who sees that helmet cam footage shoot him in the side with 5.56 first. If someone has edged weapons and you’ve got fire arms and you’re serious about not killing them, seems like bean bags / taser would have gone first THEN 5.56. I give police a lot of grace in use of deadly force as I recognize the peril they face daily, but this one takes more than I have to give. I hope those officers can make their peace with what they have done.

    What’s more amazing is how many police were devoted to one guy camping illegally. There were close to a dozen officers there. Seems like 3-5 would have done the trick, especially if one has a dog.

  59. I think those cops should have grown a pair. Witless cowards. He was little to no threat at all. A bum with knives – seriously – against drawn guns with K9. Why didn’t they first try something less lethal? Or better yet, they could have left him alone and deescalate the situation instead of escalating it. Why not watch hiim from afar and then get him when he is not expecting it.

    The traditional suspect gets killed and the cop excuse of… “he was reaching for something.” This was cowardice on the police side – plain and simple. Trigger happy police have no place in law enforcement.

  60. They are basing their justification of the shoot on the fact that he jabbed at the “Canine Officer” with one of the knives, which can be pretty clearly seen.

    The dogs are considered police officers, so he assaulted an officer. Is this Orwellian or not? I’m not a dog person and I just don’t get it, nobody wants to get bit by a dog.

    They should have held off with the dog if he was willing to come down, that is what it comes down to. Don’t know why they set off that flashbang when they did, either. It was unprofessional at best.

    • What I want to know, is that if SWAT shoots the family dog after they no-knock the wrong house, can the SWAT member get the chair because he killed a Canine Family Member?

  61. To my untrained eye it appears that the K-9 handler moves in when his dog fails to sufficiently attack/engage the subject. Also note how the dog reacts to the flash-bang. Did the K-9 handler feel he needed to be closer to the dog so that the dog could hear and react to his commands?

  62. I wasn’t there (obviously) so I can’t say that I fully get what was going on but, based on the limited video here (and elsewhere), calling it a ‘good shoot’ looks like a stretch. Regardless, it’s scenarios and videos like this, and the words of some of the police defenders, that continue to erode the public confidence in LEOs.

  63. Murder, plain and simple.

    Guy “drew” knives? I don’t know anyone who doesn’t use a knife when camping. This usually involves holding said knife. I could post the definition of “holding” but I fear that joke can only be used once. You could also see that he dropped his things when confronted.

    Last thing: isn’t less-lethal suppossed to be the prelude to lethal force? It doesn’t help with bean bags and tazers when you already shot the guy several times.

  64. The video is pretty hilarious actually.

    I remember watching a liveleak video where a single officer was confronted with a knife wielding man in a house, the cop told the guy to drop the knife several times or he would shoot him. The guy didn’t comply, just kept walking toward the cop and raising the knife. Cop finally dropped him from a few feet away. Pretty clear cut case of correct judgement in that situation, no pun intended.

    Thattttt isn’t what happened here. Though the beanbag at the end was a nice touch. I’m kinda surprised they didn’t tase the guy and then whack on him with their batons, all the while screaming for the mostly dead guy at this point to put out his hands.

  65. it is real simple. If you have a weapon in your hand when the police show up, you are going to die, and it is going to be ruled a good shoot. That is how it is. Come onto my property with a weapon, I shoot you, it is going to be ruled a good shoot. That is life.

    While this was a good shoot, it was a stupid operation. 6+ cops for an illegal camper? How about the Col. Trautman strategy of wait till he comes off the mountain in a few days, arrest him then.

  66. Rydak, coming from both a military and contracting background we never used flash bangs outside, the device is most effective in a confined space like a building. I understand he had a suppressor for quieter shooting, but I’ve also noticed that there’s been an upswing in use of suppressors by LE. I really don’t think most cops shoot enough on a hot call to warrant one, plus light is right, meaning if I don’t need it because the mission is to patrol on foot an go talk to a tribal council in Afghanistan, I typically won’t attach a suppressor, just to save weight.
    I understand the 21 ft rule, but in this instance I honestly believe that this guy wouldn’t have been able to inflict serious wounding on any officers, seeing as he would have has to sprint pretty hard downhill, he likely would have overran, or tripped. I’m not saying they shot him
    In the back, I’m just saying that it wasn’t a good shoot at this point in time, when I get more information with less media spin, then I will make a decision. I actually was kind of weirded out the guy had a helmet cam…. don’t know exactly why

  67. As an LEO…I hate to Monday Morning quarterback what other cops do. That said…I would not have shot at that point. After 3 hours they had other options anyway….such a s leaving him alone. Sending the dog in only put the dog and the K9 officer in danger.
    I wasn’t there so I can’t say for sure, but he didnt attack them. He stance seemed to be toward the K9.

    In a legal sense they may be OK, in a moral sense who knows?

  68. After watching the video a couple of times, I’m having trouble seeing who did the shooting, I don’t think it was AR guy, it sounds like it almost came from behind him.

  69. Navy SEALs don’t shoot a kid with a Taliban radio because they fear war crimes charges.

    APD lights up a homeless man as he’s turning away, shoots him in the ass with beanbag rounds, and lets the dog chew on his corpse while “BOOYAH”ing their way to two weeks of paid vacation.

    The police aren’t your friends, folks, and the people that join their tactical teams are just itching for any excuse to pull the trigger.

  70. Okay so it sounds like the dog handler was unarmed? I find his odd as most PD K-9 units not only carry a sidearms but have a patrol rifle and shotgun in their vehicle. Then there’s the guy who wasn’t supposed to have a gun and badge, but did anyway. It’s pretty. It’s cool to see the sheriff go from confident to visibly uncomfortable during the video, he knows it was a shooting that falls into a big grey area.

    • I think if you listen to the chief he said the K-9 guy did not have a weapon drawn, not necessarily that he didn’t have a weapon. Functionally the same I guess, but it would address your question.

    • My thoughts as well. Just bear spray the dude (as long as the wind is right of course or if they brought masks) and haul him in that way. Or walk away, observe him from a distance, and then move in when he’s asleep. They spent hours confronting him so you can’t tell me spending hours discreetly observing him is not feasible.

  71. If this poor guy was not holding any knifes from the start, why is he being covered by 4 long guns while unarmed? It is apparent this was not a “good shoot” by the po-po pressers attempts to “end questioning”. Additionally, What was the point of letting the dog bite a dead man? This type of policing is unacceptable. If it happened in Afghanistan against a civilian, charges would have already been filed and the offender would be in MP custody. Again, this is unacceptable. Anywhere.

  72. I think I agree with most people here that it perhaps wasn’t murder but it was irresponsible. They were in control of that situation and they escalated inappropriately which “forced” them to shoot.

    Police accept a certain amount of risk by being police. Same as firefighters or any other career where there is serious potential for danger. You’re suppose to be in these professions to help people, even if they’re crazy. Obviously a line is drawn when there is an immediate threat but the police created the immediacy here.

  73. A little google-fu would reveal that the APD has problems.

    First, they hire cops who have been let go from other departments:

    And now, the Chief of the APD is back-peddling on his opinion of whether or not this is a good shoot:

    Why would he be doing that? Oh, yea, because the DOJ has had this department under investigation since November 2012 for abusing people’s rights, that’s why, and now the mayor of the city has turned the case investigation over to the DOJ in a case of “save his own butt first” political back-peddling.

    When a mayor turns over a case to the Feds that fast, you know that sometime was done wrong, and there’s evidence.

    • ““The mayor is correct. The mayor and I talked [Sunday] and I told him [Sunday] that I thought my comments were very premature while he was screaming at me about being fired and going to jail and how he was going to get APD to SWAT my house and come over there and kick my azz,” Eden said.”

      Fixed it for him.

  74. Last summer I gave a homeless guy a ride back to Reno. He was riding trains all the way from Florida and wanted to get off in Reno but wound up in CA.
    After he told me that he had been in jail previously for assault, I knew he was OK. Huh? You had to be there.
    So I went to my ATM and got $300.00 and told him I’d drive him back to Reno to the Greyhound station and he could get wasted, eat, or get to where he was going (his grandfather’s place in Montana).
    I wondered if he would try to kill me on the way, but I trust God and myself. He was one of the most informed and thoughtful people I have met in many years.
    These murderers could have offered the same to their brother. RIP-BRO.

  75. The reason he turned was the first bullet from the cover officer’s rifle had hit him.

    Go to the original video, frame by frame its pretty obvious. You see him start turning, then a frame later you hear the boom of the first rifle shot.

  76. From just a common-sense perspective, I have a couple questions-
    any real LEOs can chime in here, based on their dept’s training.

    If they had three hours with the guy, and he was beginning to comply, then

    1. Why did they disorient him without warning with a flash bang? I thought you used those things when you were breaking down doors expecting to shoot someone shooting back at you?

    2. Did they attempt pepper spray? Mace? Pepper paintball gun? Taser?

    3. Why wasnt the bean bag used first? Why was the bean bag shooter behind the dog handler, where the handler and dog would be in line of fire?

    3. Why was the dog turned loose? If the guy was armed or reportedly dangerous, why turn the dog loose anyway? That means the dog is AUTOMATICALLY going to be defended with lethal force,
    by tired cops with itchy fingers on ARs, if theres ANY move against the dog.

    4. Thats just a set-up when you think about it from the homeless guy perspective. What sane or insane person can help from defending themselves from a charging German Shepard – bare hands or not? Would you REALLY expect the guy to just stand there and meekly be chewed on?
    Would YOU be able to do that?

    4. Whats all this nonsense about the high ground – couldn’t a couple of fit young cops have flanked him higher, say at 90 degrees to to the right of those stacked up below, to still be out of line of fire, yet get a good shot on him, like the bean bag gun guy. Or two or three bean bag shooters? This guy looked like he wasnt in the best shape- cant imagine him charging over broken ground up OR down and being a real threat against multiple ARs…

    I’d really like to see what APD uses for force continuum training, if thats still in use there. This looks all backward, frankly.

    Heres the clearest explanation of force continuum I found with a bit of googling:

    and here’s something on use of dogs in force continuum:

  77. Did anyone else hear one of the officers say “do it” right before the shots were fired? It was on one of the helmet cam videos on YouTube .

  78. Murder plain and simple. The majority if not all of the rounds ended up in the homeless guy’s back. Cowards and murders, that’s what this video shows.

  79. There is so much BS rolled up in this one.

    Chief: “All the less than lethal devices were, in fact, deployed.”
    Yeah, deployed to the scene. Not actually used until after they killed him. Why stop there with the technically accurate but purposefully misleading statements? He could have also said they discovered a large cache of weapons because of all the rocks and cacti he was surrounded by.

    Chief: “Suspect directed a threat to the K9 officer…”
    To me it looks like he was looking for a place to ‘GET ON THE GROUND’ after he realized he had run out of options. Maybe, maybe not. Now, we’ll never know. It definitely did NOT look like he was making any move to the officer, threatening or otherwise. It’s hard to tell by the video, when they approached closer, but he might not have had a place to get on the ground right at his feet. Either way, even if he did just get down in place, they likely would have considered that a crouching/threatening position, if a turn to the side was “a threat”.

    “…who was unarmed”
    Unarmed? He had a dog, with advanced protection training, and a full set of sharp teeth. He was better armed than the guy with the knives.

    The way the news presents it, it all happened so fast and the police had no other choice. Looking at the longer video released, he was at least starting to comply. Maybe it was just a trick to get closer and catch the police off their guard, but if they suspected that, they still had the bean bag option, and they should have ordered him to stop. Instead, once he appeared to be complying, and he was still much farther away, they decided to escalate and move in.

    Looks like there was at least one other cam. Are they going to release that video? Did any of the officers who were closer have a cam? Can’t tell if they’re just headsets. I know APD also uses lapel cams too, so just because there isn’t one readily visible on their heads, doesn’t mean there isn’t a better view of this.

  80. I had a whole bunch of comments to make but I am mad as hell that these coward cops did what they did. It is simply murder. There is NO argument. The police should be tried for murder the chief sued/fired/dismissed, officer in charge of training dismissed or held for malfeasance. I am stunned that the chief does not slap around these officers instead of trying to defend them. I do not want to hear any thing about they were tired, they were not trained (BS) on how to handle this situation. They man was trying to comply, use of deadly force misapplied. Why do many if not all folk feel okay that police chiefs/department can make up their own rules on use of deadly force? You and I would be held for murder if we did what these idiots did. I hope they burn in hell
    I was MP for 20 years and people asked why I did not stay in the LE field…I felt too many cops (especially the young tactical idiots) were to strange and dangerous and I wanted nothing to do with their ilk!

  81. Response to Rydak :
    Are you nuts? They can shoot you when you pull a knife out are are not threat to you? Do police really have a different set of rules because of the job? They do not, “policy” is written be some schmuck police chief and that makes it legally ok to do what they do. This BS about high ground, closing the 21 feet in X seconds is all an excuse. They have no discipline, no regard for any citizen. They are paid to go into harms way everyday because they signed up for it!!! Quit so you do not have to kill and brag about being in shootings at arfcom and how your opinion counts more than others. This was murder, pre-meditated, I hope they rot in hell!!

  82. Rydak : you are a loser, sorry, your sarcasm and disregard for the victim are too much. You take care of your macho self. Besides, you are blind to what happened here. Cops are thinned skinned and get away with too much. I would love to be on ANY jury where a cop has been involved in these type of situations. The application of deadly force is universal, there are no exception for the cops, and if there is, it is simply “legalized” murder in some jurisdictions. You can even shoot a cop in self defense, rare, but has happened (orange county CA,). I do not want any policeman killed (well there are a few exceptions) but really, this was murder. You have young punks with badges and guns getting away with murder.

  83. No way they should get away with that. THey guy yells do it while both of his hands are full of baggage. He drops the bags and turns to run and is shot 3 times in THE BACK by the officer. Thats murder.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here